Karnataka High Court refuses to quash case against married man accused of abetting nursing student’s suicide.

The High Court of Karnataka has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a married man accused of abetting a 22-year-old woman’s suicide by repeatedly stalking and threatening her, and sabotaging her marriage prospects by allegedly claiming to prospective grooms that he was in a relationship with her. She had survived a previous suicide attempt triggered by his harassment.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna rejected a petition by Naveen G., who is facing charges under Sections 75 (sexual harassment), 78 (stalking), and 108 (abetment of suicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

It was alleged that the 33-year-old petitioner tried to compel the victim, a nursing student, to forcibly fall in love with him, followed to her workplace, and compelled her to travel on his motorcycle on a few occasion. He had proposed to marry and threatening to disclose photographs of her with him if she rejected his proposal.

After she rejected his proposal, he allegedly sabotaged her marriage proposals by calling those who wanted to marry her. Following these, she attempted to end her life on July 5, 2025, but survived.

Though the woman’s family approached the police for lodging a complaint, it was withdrawn after the intervention of the petitioner’s family who counselled him. However, he continued to harass her, leading her to end her life on July 29.

Pointing out that the necessary ingredients for an offence punishable for abetment to suicide are that there must be instigation, goading and proximity, which leaves the victim with no other option but to commit suicide, the court said that “all the three ingredients are present in the present case.”

“The complaint and the chargesheet, if read as a whole, prima facie depict the deceased being progressively cornered — her refusal allegedly ignored, her privacy threatened, her workplace invaded by pursuit, her matrimonial prospects repeatedly sabotaged and her apprehension that she would not be permitted to lead a life independent of the petitioner allegedly reinforced by his continued conduct,” the court observed, while stating the trial is a must in this case.