 "Ola Electric moves HC to quash abetment case, terms suicide note false")
Ola Electric chief executive Bhavish Aggarwal told the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday that the suicide note reportedly left by a deceased employee was false. Aggarwal and others made the statement while seeking dismissal of a police complaint accusing them of abetment to suicide.
Ola Electric challenges FIR in employee’s death case
The police filed the case on October 6 following a complaint by Ashwin Kannan, the brother of K. Aravind, who allegedly took his own life by ingesting poison. Aravind, an engineer employed at Ola Electric, reportedly died by suicide on September 28. Authorities said he left a note accusing members of the management of workplace harassment, prompting a formal investigation.
Police named several individuals in the First Information Report (FIR), including Aggarwal and Subrath Kumar Das, who heads the company’s Vehicle Homologations and Regulations division. The FIR reportedly invokes Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to abetment of suicide.
Arguments presented before Justice Mohammad Nawaz
During the hearing, Senior Advocate M. S. Shyamsundar, appearing for the petitioners, submitted before Justice Mohammad Nawaz that the “Lordships had repeatedly held that death notes were not gospel truths.”
He added that he had a strong doubt that it was Mr. Prasanna’s client, the complainant Ashwin Kannan — the brother of the deceased — who was the narrator of the death note, according to LiveLaw, a legal information platform.
Complainant’s counsel objects to petitioners’ claim
In response, Advocate P. Prasanna Kumar, appearing for the complainant, expressed regret and said he was “extremely sorry,” urging that such submissions should not be made.
He stated that the company (Ola) was “worse than the East India Company” and could not make such allegations, according to LiveLaw. Kumar questioned how the petitioners could accuse the brother and said the police should investigate who had actually written the note.
Court extends interim order and directs cooperation
The petitioners also told the court that media interviews and photographs allegedly circulated by the complainant had hurt the company’s share price.
The court extended its earlier interim order, observing that there was already a direction not to harass the petitioners under the guise of investigation. That direction, the court said, would continue.
It further directed the petitioners to cooperate with the ongoing investigation and observed that if any final report was filed against them, they would be entitled to challenge it.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 17.