The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Pubtic Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...ResPondent

2. Alla venkata Lakshmi, w/o Late Raiu, aged about p9 .yeqr9, occ- Labour, R/o i;etO"goftadrdd rittig", Dammapeta Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District ...De-facto com plai nanURespondent Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in SC No.67 of 2024 on the file of the 1"t Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Bhadradri-Kothagudem for the offences U/Sec.306 rlw 34lPC and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case' l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the, Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further Proceedings SC No. 67 of 2024 on the file of the 1't Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Bhadradri-Kothagudem for the offences U/S ec.306 rlw 34 IPC pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This F'etition coming on for hearing upon perusing the tVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.V.V RAMANA R,\O, Advocate for the Petitioner and the none appeared for the Public Prosercutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and of [Mrs. Devara Samhitha, Aclvocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 6 '- -- I - IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3385 OF 2025 DATED z 27.LL.2O25. Between : Yatla Mangarao and another. The State of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another. And ORDER: ... Petitioners. ... Respondents. The present criminal petition is Iiled by the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in SC No.S7 of 2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Bhadradri-Kothagudem, registered for the offences under Section 3O6 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Heard Sri KW Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs.Devara Samhitha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. None appeared for the learned Public Prosecutor representing State/respondent No. 1.

3. A glimpse of prosecution case is that the daughter of the de-facto complain arr;t f 2',d respondent, Alla Manasa, altegedly consumed 1 Page 2 of9 herbal poison on 22.02.2024 and later died on 23.o2.2o24, purportedly due to insults and threats said to have been made by the petitioners rcgard .ng her character. 4'. The complaint was lodged on 24.02.2024, despite the alleged incidents occurring earlier and contains inconsistent timelines. The petitioners deny all allegations, asserting that the complaint is false, nrotivated and unsupported by any independent evidence. The investigation was delayed and procedurally defective, with no material establis,eing abetment, no crarity on how the'deceased procured the poison etnd all witnesses being close relatives of the complainant. The charge-sheet, Iiled mechanically and without establishing the essential ingredients of Section 306 Ipc, forms the basis of the present proceedings.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedirLgs in S.C.No.67 of 2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Assistant sessions Judge, Bhadradri-Kothagudem, arising out of crime No'52 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 3'1 IPC, are wholly unsustainable and liable to be quashed, as the complaint is based on false, omnibus and unsubstantiated allegationsr without any pima facie material to indicate abetment or instigation on the part of the petitioners. The alleged incident of insult and threat attributed to the petitioners is a fabricated version, lodged I I I d 1 .'- .- .c, n Page 3 of9 belatedly and as an afterthought, with the complaint reflecting contradictory timelines regarding the alleged incident, consumption of poison and subsequent death. The investigation suffers from serious procedural lapses, including delayed submission of FIR to the Court, failure to identify the source of the alleged poison, lack of independent ,uvitnesses, reliance solely on relatives of the de-facto complainant and non-investigation of crucial aspects, all demonstrating a mechanical and unfair investigation. The charge sheet, improperly filed by the Sub- Inspector instead of the competent authoriQr, does not disclose the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC and contains no material establishing any nexus between the petitioners and the alleged suicide. In these circumstances, the continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law, warranting quashing of the case in the interest of justice. (a) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that a holistic reading of the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value, does not disclose the foundational ingredients of any of the offences alleged and the continuation of the criminal proceedings t I against the accr-Led \ would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. It is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nipun Page 4 of9 Aneja & others Vs. state of u.p.,l K. Ramakrishnappa vs. state of Karnat:aka2, pubtic prosecutor, High court of A.p. vs. M. Krishnaiah3, shri Ram vs. state of u.p.a, Geeta vs. state of Karnatakas, Jaydeepsinh pravinsinh chavda vs. State of Gujarato and Pr:rkash & others vs. state of Maharashtraz has unequivocally held thrlt r'l'here the complaint does not demonstrate any dishonest or frauduk:nt inLention at the inception, the criminal machinery cannot be allorved to be invoked to pressurize or coerce a party. It is humbly submittr:d that in the present case, the allegations are inherently improbable, bereft of mens-rea and are admittedry intertwined with a long-standing relationship between the parties, thereby striking at the very rool' of any purported criminality. It is further humbly submitted that the complaint is a manifestly belated, retaliatory and mala fide attempt [o convert a civil dispute into a criminal prosecution, which stands srluarely condemned by the aforestated line of authorities. In such circumstances, allowing the prosecution to continue despite the absence of any legally sustainable material would only lead to harassment and miscarriage of justice, warranting the exercise of the I ' C.1.,\.No.654 of 2017 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) ' zoo;'1t ) cr.R.249 (Karnataka) 'LC i009(10) AP r84 'AtR tgzs Supreqe$urr 175 'Crl.,/r.No.1044 of 2018 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) o sLe 1c.1.;2957 of 2024 ' SLP iCrl.) 1073 of 2023 f5 Page 5 of9 '- -al,! inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in limine. (b) The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/de-facto complainant, opposing the present criminal petition, vehemently submits that the petitioners'. contentions are untenable as the FIR, statements under Sections 161 and L64 Cr.P.C., and the material gathered during investigation disclose a clear prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Section 3O6 r/w 34 IPC, making quashing unwarranted. The Sub-lnspector was fully competent to investigate a cognizable offence such as Section 306 IPC under Section 156(1) CrPC, and as held in Satish Dharmu Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra8, the rank of the investigating officer is immaterial unless specific statutory restrictions exist or prejudice is shown. The investigation was carried out properly, with witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and crucial witnesses examined before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., ensuring voluntariness and reliability. Allegations regarding delay, contradictions, lack of independent witnesses and disputed factual narratives concern matters for trial and cannot be assessed in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.l528 B.N.S.S. The charge-sheet contains sufficient material showing harassment, threats 8 zotz SCC online Bom 186 Page 6 of9 ( and intentional acts that could have driven the deceased to suicide, therebl' satisfying the prima facie ingredients of Section 306 lpc. As the prosecrrtion is supported by adequate evidence and no mandatory illegality or abuse of process is demonstrated, the petitioners, attempt to quash the proceedings is unsustainable. 6 Having considered the submissions advanced on either side and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the continu,rtio, of the proceedings in S.c.No.67 of 2024 arising out of Crime 1tro.52 of 2024 suffers from fundamental legal infirmities and warrantr; interference under Section 4g2 cr.p.c. At the outset, the complaint lodged on 24.o2.2o24, admittedly subsequent to the alleged incident dated 22.02.2024 and the death of the deceased on 23,.o2.2c'24, contains inconsistent and irreconcilable timelines regardinlS the alleged threat, the consumption of poison and the subsequt:nt events. The unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, coupled rvith material contradictions in the narration of events, casts a serious cioubt on the spontaneity and veracity of the accusation. It is well-settl':d that where the foundational facts themselves are unstable or inherently improbable, no presumption of instigation can be drawn to constitute abetment under Section 306 IpC. \\| \ (b) The record,{rtlther discloses that all witnesses examined by the proset:ution are closely related to the de-facto complainant and no *nl i'0 PageT of9 independent witness has been cited to corroborate the alleged acts of insult or threat said to have been made by the petitioners. The investigation is also silent on the crucial aspect of how and from where the deceased procured the alleged herbal poison, which strikes at the very root of the prosecution theory. This Court finds merit in the contention of the petitioners that the investigation appears mechanical and procedurally defective, as reflected by the delayed submission of the FIR to the Court and the absence of any meaningful inquiry into the alleged act of instigation. (c) The charge-sheet, on a plain reading, fails to disclose the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC, namely a positive act of instigation, intentional aiding, or active participation by the petitioners in the commission of suicide. Mere allegations of insult or vague assertions of harassment, without any proximate or compelling acts demonstrating mens-rea, do not satisfy the threshold required to constitute abetment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a consistent line of decisions referred to supra, has held that criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue where the allegations are omnibus, inherently improbable, bereft of intent or lodged as a retaliatory measure. The present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down therein. (d) While the respondent contends that disputed facts ought to - -[6 tested at trial, this4ourt is unable to accept the submission in view i (;\ of the total absence of any material establishing even a prima facie nexus betwecn the petitioners' alleged conduct and the suicide. Permitting such proceedings to continue, despite the lack of basic foundar-ional lacts, would amount to allowing the criminal process to be used as a tool of intimidation, which stands prohibited by settled jurispn-Ldence. The defects in investigation are not mere irregularities but go to the very competence of the prosecution case, rendering further r-rial Ln exercise in futility. (e) For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is satisfied that the present r:ase falls 'uvithin the categories carved out in state of Haryana vs. Bh:rjan Lale, warranting quashing of the proceedings. The complain t and the charge-sheet, even if taken at face value, do not make ou - any offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IpC and allowing [he prosecution to continue would result in a manifest abuse of the prccess of law and miscarriage ofjustice.

7. In the result, the criminal petition is ailowed. The procr:edings in s.c.No.67 of 2024 on the fire of the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhadradri-Kothagudem, arising out of Crime No.52 of 2024, registered for the offences under Section 3O6 read vrith Section 34 [pC, are hereby quashed. ' t992 Supp (l) SCC 335 (-'r Page 9 of9

8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. The l.tAdditional Assistant Sessions Judge at Bhadradri-Kothagudem. '2 The Judicial magistrate of First Class sat Dammapeta' 3., The Station House Officer, Dammapeta Police Station Bhadradri Kothagudem

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at ; Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to SRI K.V.V. RAIVIANA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Mrs. DEVARA SAMHITHA, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies NVB/Saw , I .\iii SIA ? I Jrt{ 2U6 a' 1 t (": l I HIGH COURT DATED i2711112025 ORDER CRLP.No.3385 of 2025 ALLOWINIG THE CRIMINAL PETITION 10 %