The High Court · 2025

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of 2 Telangana, Hyderabad, Telangana. Komaram Bharath, S/o Late Ramarao, Aged about. * ;;::r:3:J?:[tJ:' R/oGovindapuram Village, Charla Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem. ...RESPONDENT NO.2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS 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 quash charge sheet vide s.c.No.11 of 2025 on the file of the court of Hon'ble I Additional senior civil Judge cum I Additional Assistant sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem as against the petitioner, in the interest ofjustice, l.A. NO:2OF 2025 Petition under section 528 of B.N.S.s. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition,the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in S.c.No.11 of 2025 onlhe file of the court of Hon'ble I Additional senior civil Judge cum I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem until the disposal of the present petition, in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri pENUBALLI RAMESH BABU, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M.VIVEKANANDA REDDy, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER a THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3687 of2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-A. 1 and A.2 in S.C.No.1 1 of 2025 on thc file of learned I- Additional Assist.rnt Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem registered for the offence punishable under Section 3O6 r/w.Section 34 ol the Indran Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the delacto compiainant-2"d respondent lodged a report on O5.O1.2O24 before poiice stating that his father Komaram Ramarao took a Harvester machine through Chola F inance Cornpany on EMI basis and running thc machine to cut the rice crop of nearby farmers of his village on rr:ntal basis. On O4.O1.2O24 Lhe 2nd respondent received a phone call lrom the driver of Harvesting machine by name Thati Venkatesh stating that v,hiie himself and the father of 2.d respondent were cutting the rice crop at Peddamidisileru Village with Harvester machine, one Ramakrishna belonging to Chola Finance Company came with a trolley 1orry bearing No.TS O2 UA 6308 and abused his father 2 for not paying the DMI of Harvester machine and forcibly took the Harvester machrne into lorry. On seeing the same, the falher of complainant consumed Monocrotopus which is in the said rice crop. Immediately, they took the father of 2"d respondent to the hospital and while undergoing treatment, he died. As such, requested the police for necessary action- Basing on the said complaint, the police registered the case and afler investigation they hled charge sheet and the concerned Magistrate comrnitted the case to the District Court.

3. Heard Sri P. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State. Though notice served on respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the pelitioners is that petitioners are the empioyees of Choia Finance Company and they are not related to the deceased or the 2.d respondent. The deceased had approached the company for obtaining loan; he got the loan immediately and bought the Harvesting Machine, but failed to pay the monthly installments, due to which the superiors of petitioners have instructed them to visit thc deceased and collect EMI and in case, if he fails to pay the installment, to bring the harvesting machine as a regular practice and on instructions, they went to the scene of offence and took possession of thr: machine of the deccased as the deceased informed them that he will not pay the monthly installment and later thel' got lo knou' that the deceased committed suicide. The petitioners are no u'ay connected with the said suicide and they have not abetted thc deceased to commit suicide, petitioners are working in the company and they obeyed the instructions of their superior officers; that the petitioners discharged their functions as the employees of Chola Finance Company and thzrt they are not prcsellt when the deceased committed suicide at the scenc of offence. As such, registration of case against the petitioners is nothing bi-t abuse of process of law and orayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition statrng that the incident occurred when the petitioners went to the field for recovery of amount. As such, it requires adjudication and prayed this Court to dismiss this petition. 4 n

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, to constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC, there must be abctment by instigation or aid and the abetment and instigation must be with the intention. The question of the abettor's guilt depends on the nature of the act abetted and the manner in which the abetment was made. Under Section 1O7 of IPC, a person abets the doing of an act in either of the ways i.e., by way of instigation or by aiding or engaging with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing that act or inten[ionally aiding of doing of that act.

7. In the present case, the petitioners herein are employees of Chola Finance Companl, and during the course of their employment they went to the deceased for recovery of trMI. As the deceaseil have not paid the EMI amount they took possession of harvesting machine. There is no allegation in the complaint that these petitioners abetted the deceased for commission of suicide. Though the investigating officer recorded the statement of witnesses, none of them stated that petitioners herein instigated the deceased to commit suicide and it is not the case of 2.d respondent that even after paying the installment amount, petitioners have forcibly took the harvesting machine. Even according to the 2"d respondent, they I i I I i I I I have not paid the EMI. That apart taking awal' harvesting machine does not amount to instigation or ai<l to commit suicide. As such, there are no merits in the case of prosecution to continue the proceedings against the petitioners Hence' the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in S C No l l of 2025 are liable to be quashed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allou-ed and the proceeclings against the petil-ioners-A 1 and A 2 in S'C'No' 1 I of 2O2S on the file of learnecl I: Additional Assisl a nt Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem are hereby quasherl Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- AHMEO ABDUL LA KHAN as$rsrnrvr nEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER lAdditional senior civir Judge cum rAdditionarXssistant sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem lhe S^tltron-[ouse Officer, Charla police Station, Bhadadri Kothagudem. one CC to SRt pENUBALL| RAMESH BABU A;;;;G topUCI Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for tre state of rerangana at Hyderabad (OUT) Two CD Copies To, 1 2 4 $"s BGS/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1510712025 I i 1HE S14i^ Sc. o(J a- 2 4 rJ?tUJ 25 * o ,t )-I ]ri I t ORDER CRLP.No.3687 o12025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION r/l ) 2\ v