'Suicide Note' By Deceased Employee Is Untrue: OLA CEO Bhavish Aggarwal, Others Tell Karnataka High Court In Plea To Quash Abetment FIR

Ola Electric Technologies Private Limited CEO Bhavish Aggarwal told the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (October 29) that the suicide note allegedly left behind by the deceased employee K Aravind was not true.

The submission was made by Aggarwal and others seeking quashing of an FIR registered against them on charged of abetment to suicide.

The FIR was registered on October 6, based on the complaint by Ashwin Kannan brother of deceased K Aravind, who allegedly committed suicide by consuming poison. It is claimed that he left behind a suicide note alleging workplace harassment and denial of his salary dues and other perks by the petitioners. The police have registered a case under BNS Sections 108(Abetment of Suicide), 3(5) (common intention).

During the hearing, Senior Advocate M S Shyamsundar appearing for the petitioners submitted before Justice Mohammad Nawaz, "Lordships have repeatedly held that death notes are not gospel truths. I have a strong doubt that it is Mr Prasanna's client (Complainant Ashwin Kannan brother of deceased), who is the narrator of this death note.”

In response Advocate P Prasanna Kumar appearing for the complaint said, “I am extremely sorry...let him not make such kind of submissions. It shows that the company (OLA) is worse than East India Company, they cannot make such kind of allegations. How can you (petitioners) make an allegation against the brother? Let the police investigate who has written it (death note).”

It was also pointed out that due to interviews and photographs circulated in the media allegedly by the complainant, the share prices of the company were dropping.

Shyamsundar said, “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, you are the protagonist of that. I will show who has given the TV channel interviews. He should not be doing that. His hand have to be tied.”

He added, “More than 7,000 pages are there on the web, everyone is saying there is a toxic work culture in Ola. My employees are leaving because of this.”

Advocate Kumar responded that the Court was not examining the behaviour of the complainant but the cause of death. "Is he arguing an injunction suit? How can he attribute this to me if someone else does it?," Kumar said. 

Following which court orally said:

“Investigation is pending, 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. Police are doing an investigation and they have to do a fair investigation they cannot lean on any side...”

During the hearing Shyamsundar also suggested that soon after the death, an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) was filed by the Police and following the complaint the police have filed another FIR. He said that the investigations should have continued in the same FIR.

The court however said, “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, other FIR cannot be registered?...Initially the police after the death filed UDR; subsequently if complainant comes and says about suicide then they filed u/sec 108 BNS.”

Appearing for the State, ASPP B N Jagadeesha pointed to the court that in response to the notices issued by the Police to the petitioners for appearance and cooperate with the investigation, instead of appearing the petitioners were sending letters.

Following which the court extended its earlier interim order and said, “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 petitioners have approached the court seeking to quash the FIR. By way of interim relief they have sought for the stay of all investigation and direct the police not to take any coercive action against them.

Case Title: Subrat Kumar Dash & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 14346/2025

Appearance: Senior Advocate M S Shyamsundar For Petitioner.

ASPP B N Jagadeesha for R1.

Advocate P Prasanna Kumar for R2.