The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay all further proceedings SC No. 12t2023 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge Cum Assistant Sessions Judge Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal against the Petitioner / Accused including appearance of the Petitioner. _ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri G RAVI CHANDRAN, Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. MADHAVT, Assistant pubric Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No..l and none appeared for Respondent no.2 The Court made the following: ORDER - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.9888 ot 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr'P'C by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in spl.S.C.No.12 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional senior civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal (for short 'trial court'), registered for the offence under section 306 of the lndian Penal Code (fo1 short 'lPC')

2.HeardMr.G.RaviCh6ndran,learnedcounselforthepetitionerand Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. lnspite of service of notice, there is no representation for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner and deceased are in relationship since 15 years and both of them intended to I L marry. Later, when the petitioner refused to marry her, the deceased committed suicide bY hanging.

4. Basing on the complaint lodged by de facto complainanl, who is the sister of deceased, the Police registered a crime for the offence under Section 174 o't Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, basing 2 \ "- .1 on the strength of statements of witnesses, the rnvestigating officer has altered the Section of Law to 306 of lpC. After completion of investigation, the porice fired charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence under section 306 of rpc before the triar court, the same was taken cognrzance and numbered as Spl.S.C.No .12 ot 2023. -

5. Submissi on s made bv the learned counsel for the oetitioner:

5.1. Learned counser for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been farsery impricated in the case. He further submits that the petitioner and deceased are in rerationship for more than .r5 years. The petitioner and deceased are in good terms and she never expressed any probrems to him during her rife time. The petitioner never denied to marry the deceased but onry requested her to wait for some time due to existing family obrigations. Even if the ailegations of the petitioner disapproving for the marriage are taken to be true, it does not amount to offence under section 306 of lpc. He further submits that the petitioner had reprimanded the de facto comprainant for wanting to marry a person of bad character and took responsibility to find her a suitable match. Despite her deceased sister arso advising her to follow his guidance, she reberred. Hording a grudge, she has farsery impricated him in her sister's death. There is no suicide note, to the best of the petitioneis knowledge, indicating any role played by him in the ; 3 deceased,s suicide, No specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner to show that he has abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide hence the ingredients of offence under section 306 of IPC are not made out. Most of the witnesses are family members of the de facto complainant and they are interested witnesses.

5.2. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengall , wherein, the parameters of Section 306 of IPC are explained in the following terms: "12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guitty of an offence under Section 3OO lPC, the coutl must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. lt ts a/so to be borne in mind that m cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there berng any posttive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the paft of the accused which tecl or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

13. ln order to bring a case within the purview of Section 3OO of tPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who ls sald to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing cefiain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must (20 t0) r scc 707 '1 \ 4 be proved and established by the proseculion before he could be convicted under Section 306 lpC."

5.3. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon,ble supreme court rn chitresh Kumar chopra v. sfate (Govt. of NCT of Delfii)'z, wherein, it is herd that the there shourd be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person,s suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and serf-respect. Therefore, it is impossibre to ray down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

5.4. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public prosecutor contended that there are specific ailegations against the petitioner. Ail the allegations levelred in the compraint as weil as in the charge sheet are subject matter of triar, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition 7 Section 306 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference: "306. Ahetment of suicide. - lf any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shatt be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term '? lzooe,1 to scc oos ,/, 5 which may extend to ten years' and shall also be liable to fine."

8. ln Laxmi Das v. State of West Bengal and others3, the Hon'ble supreme court held that there needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 lPC. g. ln patel Babubhai Manohardas and others y. stafe of Guiarata, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that even if the suicide note is taken as correct and genuine, we do not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellants proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. No act is attributed to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. ln such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against the appellants.

10. lt is an admitted fact that the petitioner and deceased are in relationship and they both intended to marry. According to the case of the prosecution, as the petitioner denied to marry the deceased, she committed suicide. on the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioner r 2025 SCC OnLine sc 120 r 2025 SCC Onl-ine sc 503 6 ,1 that he never denied to marry the deceased but only requested her to wait for some time due to his family obligations

11. On a perusal of the statements of the witnesses and charge sheet, it discloses that the petitloner denied marrying the deceased in September, 2021 . However, the deceased committed suicide on 21 '102021 Hence' there is no proximate rink between the petitioner denying to marry the deceased and the commission of suicide. The petitioner has not played any active rore or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Even there is no allegation against the petitioner suggesting that his conduct left the deceased with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing suicide. No suicide note was found or written by the deceased to prove the guilt of the petitioner. Furthermore, a remark such as telling the deceased not to be alive if she cannot live without marrying the petitioner also does not amount to abetment, as there must be a positive act by the petitioner that drives the deceased to take the extreme step and mere refusal to marriage does not suffice.

12. Apart from that, neither the statement of the de facto complainant nor other witnesses suggest any kind of instigation by the petitioner to abet the commission of suicide. Assuming that the aregations levered against the petitioner are true mere refusar to marriage does not amount \ 7 7 to abetment or instigatron to suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. Mental distress caused by relationship issues, without evidence of direct instigation, does not amount to abetment. 't3. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law as it cannot stand the test of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in Spl.S.C.No .12 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- T. JAYASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC ,h\1'; FFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble Smt. Juvvadi Sridevi To, (For Her Ladyship,s kind perusal) '1 . The Additionar senior civil Judge cum Assistant sessions Judge Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchat. - r- 7 IH lrr:o*T_aBgfil:"

2. The XX Metropolitan Magiskate Cyberabad at Medchal. 3 The station House officer, shamirpet p.S., cyberabad commissionerate. 4. 11 LRCopies. u Tetangana, uign court Buiidrg;t iir;"1:;#j ' Union of tndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 6 The secretarv. Advocatgs Association Library, High court for the state of 7. One CC to SRt. G RAV| CHANDRAN, Advocate [OPUC] S Two ccs to pUBLrc pRosECUToR, High court for rhe state of rerangana 9. Two CD Copies MKN/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ORDER CRLP.No.9888 of 2023 t:H1 ,G o 2 g JUt 2025 (n r' !: I I * ^, f rlH l- o- I t ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION