Holding Intimate Photos and Extorting Money—Not Just a Breakup, But Abetment to Suicide: Karnataka High Court Refuses to Quash Charges

“A Young Life Is Lost... The Digital Evidence Is Horrendous”: Karnataka High Court, in a sternly worded judgment, refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of abetting the suicide of his former partner, alongside serious charges under the Information Technology Act for circulating intimate images and cyber blackmail.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, dismissing the plea filed under Section 482 CrPC, held: “This is not merely a case of uttering ‘go and die’. It is a tale of sustained mental torture, financial exploitation, and digital blackmail that drove a young woman to take her own life.”

The court observed that the petitioner’s attempt to downplay the allegations as a failed relationship was “wholly untenable in the face of the digital evidence and the tragic consequence of a lost life.”

Background of the Case: A Tragic Intersection of Betrayal, Blackmail, and Suicide

The case arises from a complaint filed by the father of the deceased, a young woman who had been in a three-year live-in relationship with the petitioner, Varun G.A.

The complaint revealed: The petitioner and the deceased were classmates in engineering college and later cohabited in Bengaluru.

The relationship involved financial transactions amounting to ₹51 lakhs, allegedly extorted under threats of leaking intimate photographs and videos.

On 28th December 2023, after an argument on the terrace of her apartment, the deceased jumped from the 6th floor, ending her life.

Initially, a case under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) was registered. After forensic analysis, further charges under Sections 66(E) (violation of privacy) and 67(A) (transmission of sexually explicit material) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, were added.

“Not Mere Words, But a Pattern of Coercion”: Court Rejects Defence Plea

The defence argued that the petitioner’s utterance—“go and die”—was a casual remark made in the heat of an argument and could not constitute abetment to suicide.

Justice Nagaprasanna rejected this outright: “The plea that ‘go and die’ does not constitute abetment collapses in the face of the petitioner’s continued harassment, blackmail, and financial exploitation of the deceased. The fight on the terrace was not an isolated spat but the culmination of sustained cruelty.”

“Horrendous Digital Evidence”: Court Shocked by FSL Findings

The Court noted with grave concern the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, which revealed:

Numerous nude photographs and intimate videos of the deceased stored on the petitioner’s mobile phone and laptop.

Evidence that these were used to threaten the deceased and extract large sums of money over time.

Justice Nagaprasanna recorded: “The pictures deciphered from the FSL report are horrendous. Holding such images as leverage for extortion reflects a deep moral and legal transgression.”

On the Abetment Charge: “This Is a Matter for Full Trial”

Quoting Section 306 IPC and the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC, the Court remarked: “A person who, by a continued course of conduct, creates circumstances leaving the victim with no option but to end her life, undoubtedly abets suicide.”

Rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on prior judgments concerning casual utterances, the Court clarified:

“The petitioner was the last person seen with the deceased. The proximity of the altercation and the tragic act of suicide is too close to be ignored.”

“The Digital Trial Will Speak”: On Cyber Crime Charges

The Court squarely upheld the charges under:

Section 66(E) IT Act – For capturing, publishing, or transmitting images violating the privacy of the deceased.

Section 67(A) IT Act – For publishing or transmitting sexually explicit material.

Justice Nagaprasanna stated: “The contents of the petitioner’s phone and laptop are not mere stray files—they are a digital narrative of humiliation, coercion, and betrayal. This is not a matter that can be brushed aside at the threshold.”

Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC: “Not a Tool to Scuttle Serious Trials”

Citing the landmark judgment in Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated:

“Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are not intended to stifle legitimate prosecution where prima facie material exists. They cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial at the pre-trial stage.”

The Court further relied on the Bhajan Lal case, affirming that quashing is impermissible when:

“The allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences.”

Sharp Words on Mental Health and Victim Blaming

In a poignant observation, Justice Nagaprasanna warned against trivialising mental health issues:

“A precious life is lost. It is a dangerous slope to suggest that someone was ‘too sensitive’ or ‘weak’. The law must examine whether the acts of the accused were the proximate cause that pushed the deceased to the brink.”

Final Order: Petition Dismissed, Trial to Proceed

The Court concluded: “This Court declines to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The petition lacks merit and stands dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stand dissolved. The trial shall proceed.”

This ruling stands as a resounding reaffirmation of judicial sensitivity to crimes involving cyber harassment, privacy violations, emotional blackmail, and gendered abuse. The High Court made it clear that when the consequences of coercion and betrayal are as grave as a loss of life, courts cannot be expected to short-circuit the process of justice.

Date of Decision: 25th June 2025