Introduction:
In a case that has attracted national attention and stirred debate about corporate responsibility, mental health, and workplace culture, the Karnataka High Court heard arguments in a petition filed by senior officials of Ola Electric Technologies Private Limited, including its CEO Bhavish Aggarwal, seeking to quash an FIR registered against them for alleged abetment of suicide of an employee, K. Aravind. The case, Subrat Kumar Dash & Others v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Criminal Petition No. 14346/2025, was heard by Justice Mohammad Nawaz. The petitioners contended that the allegations made in the FIR, which was based on a suicide note purportedly left behind by the deceased, were false and unsubstantiated. The FIR, registered under Sections 108 (Abetment of Suicide) and 3(5) (Common Intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), was filed following a complaint by the deceased’s brother, Ashwin Kannan. The incident has not only raised questions about the credibility of suicide notes as sole pieces of evidence but has also triggered discussions about the balance between an ongoing police investigation and the protection of corporate reputations amid media scrutiny.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:
Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Senior Advocate M.S. Shyamsundar strongly contested the contents and authenticity of the alleged suicide note left by the deceased K. Aravind. He submitted before the court that “death notes are not gospel truths” and that there existed reasonable doubt regarding whether the note was indeed authored by the deceased or influenced by other parties. He argued that it was possible that the complainant himself, Ashwin Kannan, may have had a hand in preparing or influencing the content of the note, suggesting ulterior motives behind the complaint. The counsel stated that the FIR was registered hastily without proper verification of facts and that the allegations of workplace harassment and non-payment of dues were entirely false.
Shyamsundar further submitted that the deceased was an employee of Ola Electric, and there was no record of any complaint of harassment or salary denial during his tenure. He contended that the petitioners had no reason or motive to abet any act leading to suicide. Moreover, the counsel criticized the complainant’s conduct post-incident, claiming that he had been engaging with the media, circulating interviews and photographs that painted Ola Electric in a negative light, causing the company’s share prices to drop. “I am a public listed company and my shares are dropping. This is what he (complainant) is doing by giving the pictures; this is absolutely disparaging,” Shyamsundar argued, alleging that the complainant’s actions were maliciously aimed at tarnishing the company’s image.
He added that since the unfortunate death of the employee, over 7,000 pages of online content had surfaced discussing alleged “toxic work culture” at Ola Electric, further damaging its public reputation and creating unnecessary hysteria. According to the petitioners, such narratives were being exploited to target the company’s leadership unfairly. Shyamsundar also pointed out procedural irregularities, stating that the police initially registered an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) following the incident, but later, based on the complainant’s subsequent statement, a new FIR was filed. He argued that the investigation should have continued under the UDR instead of lodging a fresh FIR, suggesting that the police action was redundant and driven by external pressure.
The senior counsel asserted that the petitioners were being subjected to harassment in the guise of investigation. He requested the Court to stay further proceedings and direct the police not to take coercive action against them until a fair and impartial investigation is completed. He also cited precedents where courts had observed that suicide notes should not be considered conclusive evidence without corroboration. The counsel emphasized that the law demands a direct link between the accused’s actions and the decision to commit suicide, which was entirely absent in this case.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:
Opposing the petition, Advocate P. Prasanna Kumar, appearing for the complainant, strongly objected to the allegations made by the petitioners’ counsel. Taking serious exception to Shyamsundar’s statement suggesting that the complainant could have fabricated or influenced the suicide note, Kumar responded, “I am extremely sorry… let him not make such kind of submissions. It shows that the company (Ola Electric) is worse than the East India Company. They cannot make such allegations. How can the petitioners accuse the brother of fabricating a death note? Let the police investigate who has written it.” He stressed that such allegations were deeply hurtful and disrespectful to the family of the deceased, who were already dealing with emotional trauma.
Kumar further contended that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and that the petitioners were attempting to derail the process through their influence and resources. He argued that the police must be allowed to examine all aspects of the case, including handwriting verification, digital communications, and employment records, to ascertain the authenticity of the suicide note and the allegations of harassment. He reiterated that the High Court should not intervene prematurely to quash an FIR when factual issues are yet to be investigated.
The complainant’s counsel also dismissed the petitioners’ claim that the media coverage was responsible for the company’s falling share prices, stating that the Court’s concern should be limited to determining whether there was abetment of suicide, not the company’s market performance. “Is he arguing an injunction suit? How can he attribute this to me if someone else does it?” Kumar retorted, pointing out that the petitioners seemed more concerned about corporate image management than justice for the deceased.
Appearing for the State, ASPP B.N. Jagadeesha supported the complainant’s position and informed the Court that despite repeated notices issued by the police, the petitioners had not appeared in person for investigation and had instead been sending letters through their representatives. The State counsel emphasized that the police were conducting a fair investigation and that the petitioners’ non-cooperation was impeding progress. He assured the Court that the investigation was being carried out strictly within legal parameters and that no harassment was being inflicted upon the petitioners.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
After hearing both sides, Justice Mohammad Nawaz of the Karnataka High Court delivered an oral observation that reflected a careful balance between ensuring fair investigation and preventing undue harassment of the accused. The Court noted that while the allegations in the FIR were serious and warranted proper investigation, the police must conduct their inquiry in a fair and unbiased manner. “Investigation is pending,” the Court said, “this court has said that respondent (police) shall not harass the petitioners under the pretext of investigation. They have to conduct a fair investigation and file an appropriate final report in the four corners of law/provisions available to them.”
Addressing the issue of multiple proceedings, the Court clarified that although an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) had initially been filed, the registration of a fresh FIR under Section 108 of the BNS was not legally impermissible once new allegations of abetment surfaced. Justice Nawaz observed, “UDR will be closed now and they (police) have to act on this complaint now. Show me any judgment which says if there is UDR, another FIR cannot be registered? Initially, the police after the death filed UDR; subsequently, if the complainant comes and says about suicide then they filed under Section 108 BNS.”
The Court further expressed disapproval of the confrontational tone adopted during the proceedings, reminding both counsels to confine themselves to legal arguments. It also noted that the allegations against the complainant regarding media publicity and market impact were irrelevant to the core issue of abetment and therefore did not warrant judicial interference at this stage.
The Bench extended its earlier interim order restraining the police from taking coercive action against the petitioners but simultaneously directed the petitioners to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation. “There is already a direction of this court… not to harass the petitioner in the guise of investigation; that direction shall continue. Petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation of the case. If any final report against petitioners is filed, you can challenge that also. List for further hearing on November 17,” the Court ordered.
In effect, the Court struck a middle path—protecting the petitioners from potential misuse of investigative powers while ensuring that the police retained their authority to carry out a lawful investigation. By refusing to quash the FIR at this preliminary stage, the Court reinforced the principle that factual matters, especially in cases involving alleged abetment of suicide, must be determined through evidence, not conjecture.
The High Court’s handling of the matter underscores the judicial balance between safeguarding individual rights and upholding the integrity of the criminal justice process. The observations also reflect the evolving judicial stance on workplace-related mental health issues, which increasingly intersect with criminal law. The Court’s insistence on fair investigation, coupled with protection against harassment, sends a clear message about due process and corporate accountability in such sensitive cases.