The High Court · 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 call for the record in P.R.C.No.1 18 ol 2024 on the file of the court of trre tV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate -cum- lV Additional Junior Civtl Judge, At. L.B. Nagar. and quash the same. .A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memoiandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in P.R.C.No.118 of 2024 on the file of the court of the lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum- lV Additional Junior Civil Judge, at. L.B. Nagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R.Gopi Mohan, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the State/ Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2.. The Court made the following: ORDER: ? THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SU.IIINA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3567 of 2O2t3 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is liled seeking t-o quash the proceedings against [hc petitioner-accused in P.tl.l].No.118 of 2024 on the file of the learned IV Additional l'letropolitan Magistratr: - cum IV Additional Junior Civil Judg,:. L.B Nagar, registercd for the offence punishable under Seclrorr 3O6 of the Ind ia n Peral ('ode, 1860.

2. The briel [ac[s of the case are that or- 2O.O2.2O23 respondent No.2/ de facto complainant lodged:l r':port before the Polic,: stating that on 16.12.2022, she ret:':ii'ed a death message from the loco piiot of train No.12776 reporting that an unknown malc, aged approximately 40 years, ha<l b':en run over by the train at KM No. 199 14-6 near LC Gate N r.tj, Moula Ali Station, and that the body was lying between the dorvn line tracks. Basecl on this information, a case was rcgi,;tere d under Crime N,r. 5()4 of 2022 :urrder Section 774 of (lr P.C. at RPS Secunderabad by Sri M. SukdevNayak, RHC-S:;/ SC, and the lnvestlgatrolr was entrusted to one Sri DevidR rjrr, RHC-583 During t-he rnvestigation, the deceased was id,, r: tificd as Sri 2 sKs'J Ctl,P.No.3567 of 2025 () JorepallyBhaskar Reddy. A suicide note was found in the purse of the deceased stating that he had taken a hand loan of Rs.1,0O,00O/- from one Karri Satyanarayana on 05.O9.2020, and that the said person was maliciously demanding Rs.6,0O,00O/-. Unable to bear the harassment and torture, the deceased decided to end his life. Based on this evidence, tl.e section ol law was altered frorn 774 Cr.P.C., to 3O6 of IPC, and the CD file was tralsferred to PS Chaitanyapuri, Rachakonda, on point of jurisdiction. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/ accused filed the present criminal petition.

3. Heard Sri R. Gopi Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf. 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the materials relied upon by the prosecution are wholly insufficient to make out a pima facie case under Section 306 IPC, and continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the complaint, charge sheet, and witness statements do not reveal any instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid on the part of the SKS,J Crt. P. \ro.3567 of 2O25 petitioner in abetting the alleged suicide of the dr:' eased The charge sheet lacks evidence of mensrea or any dire '::l or indirect act that crruld have compelled the deceased to tak' t he extreme step. The suicide note itself remains unverihed, as lhe Forcnsic Sciencc Lirboratory was unable to conclude that th.: lrandwriting was lhat of the deceased, owing to the failure oi t lre lamily to provide suffir:ient specimen writings.

5. Learncd counsel for the petitioner contcndetl Ihat the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of key witnesses also do not. LLribule any harassme nt or abetment by the petitioner z r I that the statement o[ the loco pilot casts serious doubt ovt t- the cztuse of death, as he categorically stated that the deceas crl lay on the raih,r,ay track and was not run over by the ti':rin under his control. Hc further contended that the re-regis, t -ation of the case uncler Section 306 IPC by the Chaitanyap .r 'i Police was erroneoLls in view of the fact that the incident occ tr-red at Moula Ali within a dilferent jurisdiction. Therefore, r, prayed the Court to r+Lash the proceedings against the :retitioner by allowing t his criminal pel il ion.

6. On tht: other hand, iearned Assistant Pu.rlic Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned ,.r,unsel for the petitione r stating that the deceased, who was e n,3aged in real 4 sKs,J Crl.P.l{o.3567 of 2025 - estate business and had two daughters, borrowed Rs.i,OO,000/- from the accused in the year 2O2O aod that the accused began harassing the deceased to repay Rs.6,OO,000/- instead of the actual loan amount. On 16.12.2022, the deceased left his residence stating that he was going to repay the debt and did not return. Later, he was found dead near Train No.12776 at Moula Ali Station, with a suicide note in his pocket stating that he was ending his life due to the harassment and torture caused by the accused to avoid social humiliation. Therefore, he contended that whether such harassment amounts to instigation is a matter that requires trial, and hence, at this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the olfence under Section 306 IPC is not attracted. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the pctition. 7 . In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein is that he lent an amount of Rs. 1,0O,000/- to the deceased and harassed the deceased for repayment of Rs.6,OO,OOO/-. As such, he committed suicide. wi,;-' r" 5 SKS,J CrL.t'No.3567 of 2()25

8. Section 306 of IPC defines abatement ol' r;r'Licide which reads as undt:r "3ori. At)etment of suicide: If any person commiti ruicide, wh<lever abcts the commissionof such suicide s rall be purLishe<l with imprisonment of either description lol a term rvhich rnay extend to ten ]'ears, and shall also be liilt '( to fine' 1O?'. Abctment ot a thing : A person abets the <loing of a thirrg, wlro - First i Irstigates ant'person to do that thlng; or Se(on(lh' : Engages with one or more other persoll lr- Persons in irny conspirac)' for the doing of that thing, if an ar t 'rr illegal omisiion takes place in pursuance of that conspirall-r , 2nd in order 1o the (loing of that thing; or Th:rdll' Intentionatly aids, by any act or illegal ornis:rion, the doing r>l that thing.' g. To prove the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecul-ion has to prove that the deceased conrrrritted suicide due to the zrbetment of the accused. In the prisjent case, the allegaticn is that petitioner lent an amount of lls 1,O0,00O/ - to the decr'aserl and harassed him for repayment o1 I<s'6,O0,OOO/-' Petitionr:r hr:rein is not present at the scene o1-rlfence Except the suicide trote that due to the harassment of p rt:tioner herein, he comrrittt:d suicide there are no ingredients i'r ihe complaint to constitute abetment by the petitioner eith€r: by aid or by instigation. Mere lending of amount by thr-' :)etitioner and asking for repayment will not come under abetr:rcnt. There are no specihc details about the harassment and thr::-e are no other I { 6 SKI},J Crl.P,No.3567 of 2025 witnesses to say that petitioner abated the deceased for commission of suicide. Furthermore, there is no mens rea rn this case. The aid or instigation must be with an intention and there is no such averment in the complaint or in the suicide note. As such continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in P.R.C.No.118 of 2024 on the hle of the iearned IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate cum - IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate -Cum- lV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The Station House Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Hyderabad 3. One CC to Sri. R.Gopi Mohan, Advocate [OPUCI 4. One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies. 0A- \' PSK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1410712025 i, 2 6 St.r iOtr ; rl ORDER 'ii CRLP.No.3567 ot 2025 ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION (+ I n