The High Court · 2025

2. Sri Madiga Ravinder, S/o Parmaiah, Aged 50 years' Occ Business' R'/o - H.N;;:7-rzansz, Saketh Nagar, Vikaiabad, Vikarabad District' ...Respondent No.? Defacto Complainant PetitionunderSection4S2otCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may u" pr""""j to call .for the records relating to pRC No.2'1 of 2019 (unregistered slr:.il^. Case) dt. 30-09-2019 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum- seniorcivilJudge,Vikarabad,againstthePetitioneriAccusedNo.2andquash the same. l.A. NO:ZOF 2022 I 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 ie pteaseA to grant stay of all further p-roce.edings in PRC No'21 of 2.019 i*r-"gi.t"*o Se"ssions Case) dt.30-09-2019 on the file of the Assistant Sessions );J;; "r; senior civit Judge, Vikarabad in respect of the Petitioner/Accused r.ro.i tilr the disposal of the criminal petition in the interest of the justice. -7 l.A. NO:4 oF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or ciiminaipetition, the iigh a;;;ry be pleased to extend the interim stay granted in crl.p.lto.eo al orioiz- iitia 1111012022 until further orders. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition^and upon h-earing the arguments of Sri Anuganti Praneeth, Advocate for the petitioner and ft,e"rvrs S.r,,l"aJnrrin."i"ilfr"pturi" Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.i and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION N0.8087 ot 2022 o RDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr'P'C by the petitioner-accusedNo'2seekingtoquashtheproceedingsagainstherin P.R.C.No 2't of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Assistant SessionsJudge-cum-SeniorCivilJudgeatVikarabad.Theoffence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC')'

2. Heard trlr. Anuganti Praneeth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. s.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. There is no representation for respondent No.2- de facto complainant. Perused the record'

3.Thecaseoftheprosecution,inbrief,isthatthepetitionerand deceased are in relationship since five years and both of them intended to marry. However, as accused No.1, who is the father of the petitioner, insulted and mentally harassed the deceased over phone calls stating that he had no Gorernment';ob, the deceased, feeling insurted and vexed on his life, committed suicide by hanging.

4.Basingonthecomplaintlodgedbythedefactocomplainant,who is the father of the deceased, the Police registered a case in crime 2 No'204 0f 2o1g for the offence under Section 306 r/w. Section 34 0f lpc After compretion of investigation, the porice fired charge sheet before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-senior civir Judge at Vikarabad, for the aforesaid offence and the same was numbered as p.R.C.No.21 2019. The p.R.C. was committed to the Sessions Court on 30.09.2019, however the same has not been numbered till date, as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Submisstons made bv the learn ed co u nsel for th e petiti oner: 5'1' The petitioner is innocent and has been farsery impricated in the case by the de facto comprainant, with an intention to harass her. In the entire compraint or charge sheet' no specific overr acts are attributed to the petitioner to prove that she has abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The statements of witnesses do not show any proximity or nexus between the petitioner's conduct and the suicide committed by the deceased Hence, the basic ingredients of sections 107 and 306 of IPC are not made out against the petitioner. Even if the aregation of disapproving for the marriage is taken to be true, it does not amount to offence under Section 3oo of tpc. There is no suicide note, to the best of the petitioner,s knowledge, indicating any role played by her in the deceased's suicide. Most of the witnesses are family members and friends of the de facto comprainant and they are interested witnesses. 3

5.2. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Shenbagavalli and others v' lnspector of Police' Kancheepuram District and anotherl and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.9 and 17, wherein, it is held as follows: g. There is nothing on record to indicate that, on the date of the unfoftunate incident or any time in close proximity thereot there was any act of instigation on the part of the Appellants. On this blsls, it is contended that the essential as there ingredients of Sectlon 306 IPC are not fulfilled' . uip"urs to be no provocation or instigative act in close temporal proximity to the incident- The language employed in the suicide note does not reflect any direct inducement that teft the deceased with no other recourse but to take such an extreme step. Even assuming that the notes were authored by the deceased, a reading of their conten.ts suggesls fhal tie deceased may have been emotionally sensitive and possibty reacted with disproporlionate gravrty to the..events in 'question. While the remark allegedty made-questioning the manhood of the deceased could be hurtful and may affect a person s dignity but it cannot, in itsetf and especially after a 'gap of near-ly a month between the incident and the suicide' it cannot be construed as a sufficient provocation that would impet an ordinary, reasonable person to take such an irrevocable steP.

17. These being the essential ingredients for the offence of abetment to suicide, and the said ingredients having not been fulfitted, the fufther continuation of proceedings would not be sustainable. The other evidence such as statements, sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, apaft from the suiiide note, does not in any manner advance the case of the prosecution, pafticutarly when the foundation o-f the case is fhe suiclde note itself. With the very element of abetment conspicuously absent from the allegations made. in the FIR which is priiarity based upon the suicide note, the essentra/ requirements for constituting an offence unler Ss9!ipa-399 lPb remain unfdfitled. As such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of law- The Coui cannot permit such proceedings to degenerate into instruments of harassment or uniust prosecution '

5.3. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner ' 2025 scc onl.inc sc 987 -- 1

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public prosecutor contended that the petitioner had refusecr to marry the deceased on the ground that he had no Government job, and, beirg unabre to bear the same, the deceased committed suicide. rt is further contended that ail the allegations levefied 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. lt is apposite to extract Sections 107 and 306 of lpC, for proper adjudication of the nratter, and the same reads as follows: "Section 1O7 lpC: Abetment of a thing._ A person abets the doing of a thing, wlto- First.-lnstigates any pcrson to. do that thing: or Secondty.__ Engages with one or more other person oi pirin"'i unv conspiycy .for the doing of that thing, if an act ir ittegat omission_takes place in pursuance of ihat iia i, order to the doing of that thing, or Thirdly.*tnte'ntiiilii i,,d, "onrp,irr"y, ' by any act or iltegat omission,-the Ooinq of ha,t tiiii lxolayalion 1.-A person who, by vtitfi misripiisJntation, or by witfut conceatment of a material fact whici n" i" Oiiio t" d/'sc/ose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attemDts to 11i:9 ::,p-".yr:, a thing to be done, ,s sa/d ro instisate the ootng ot that thing. Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in oraer to facititate tne c.ommissionof that act, and thereby facititate the comiission thereof, is said to aicj the doing of that act.,, Seclion 306 tPC: Ahetment of suicide: tf any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commissioi of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment oi iiner description for a term which may extend to ten years-, and shall also be liabte to fine." --r7. -- 5

8. ln the judgment of State of Haryana and others v' CH'Bhaian Lal and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: The fotlowing categories of cases can be stated by way of itlustration wherein the extraordinary power under Arlicle 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr'P C can be -exercised ay ine uign Couft either to prevent abuse of the process of iny Coui or otherwise to secure the ends of iustice' 'iniugn i may not be posslb/e to lay down any precise, .clearly detiied and sufficientiy channelised and inflexible guidelines or ,igia t.ut"" and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cZses wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the atlegations made in the First lnformation 'RLp6v1 o, the comp-laint, even if they are taken at their face uaiui ana acceptZd in their entircty do not prim.a facie constitute any'offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the altegations in the First lnformation Repoi and 'oiher materiats, if iny, accompanying the F'l'R' do nol disc/ose by police a cognizabte offence, iustifying an investigation office"rs under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an o,rder of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; . (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in..the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in suppotl of the same do not'disctose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) Where, the altegations in the FtR do not constitute a 'cognizabte offence but constitute only a non-cognizable iffLr"", no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) Where the atlegations made in the FIR or complaint are so 'absurd and inher*ntly improbabte on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a iust conclusion that there is 'sufficieni ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafte.d in. any of the 'piovisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a Z"i.*,ut proceeding is instituted) to the . institution and iionitiruun"" of the firoceedings and/or where there is a specific 'tg92scc(criqzo 6 provtsbn in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the gri"u"n""-iiliZ aggrieved party; (l) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestty attended with mala fide and/or where-the proc6eding is iaticiously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking uJnguu,n"u on the accused and with a view to spite him due to'privaie ina personat g;ud;J. 9' on a perusar of the aregations made in compraint, statements of the witnesses and charge sheet, even if they are taken on face varue, prima facie, no substantiar and specific aregations have been made against the petitioner, except stating that she denied marrying the deceased as he had no Government job. As seen from the complaint and charge sheet, not even a single specific overt act was attributed to the petitioner.

10. Having gone through the 161 Cr.p.C. statements of de facto complainant and LW-2,M.suguna, who are the parents of deceased, they discrose that on 17 -06.201g, the deceased informed the petitioner that he is about to commit suicide and as the petitioner did not stop him, the deceased committed suicide on 20.06.201g. rf the de facfo comprainant and LW-2 had known about their son/deceased is about to commit suicide, they ought to have intervened and stopped him, instead of making allegations against the petitioner. ,l 11' As per the statement of LW-4lB.sheshi Kumar, who is the friend of the deceased, the deceased had invited him to his farm house for a party on the night of 19.06 2019. On the morning of 20.06.2019, at 06.00 a.m., 7 LW-2 left to Vikarabad and when he reached home at 07'30 a'm'' he came to know that the deceased committed suicide. However, there is no mention in his statement stating that the deceased had shared anything about the petitioner refusing to marry the deceased' Hence' it is clearly evident that there is no proximate link between the petitioner's refusal to marrythedeceasedandthecommissionofsuicide.Thepetitionerhas not played any active role, nor has she committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner suggesting that her conduct left the deceased with no alternative, but to commit the unfortunate act of suicide. Furthermore, no suicide note was found or written by the deceased implicating the petitioner, which could establish her guilt'

12. Apart from that, neither the statement of the de facfo complainant nor those of other witnesses do not indicate any kind of instigation or conduct on the part of the petitioner that could be construed as abetment to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Assuming that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are true, mere denial to marriage does not amoun{ to abetment or instlgation to commit suicide' The prosecution has failed to collect any incriminating material or credible evidence to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Mental distress caused by relationship issues, without evidence of direct instigation, does not amount to abetment. B

13. Having regard to the anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the raw raid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the.considered opinion that the continuation of criminar proceedings against the petitioner amounts to sheer abuse of the process of raw, and hence, the proceedings against her are liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, this criminar petition is ailowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in p.R.c.No.2i of 2019 on the file of the learned Assistant sessions Judge-cum-senior civir Judge at Vikarabad and consequent proceedings arising thereof, stands quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SO/. NCHANDRA SEKHAR RAO EPU TY REGISTRAR 1 //TRUE COPYII { r/ SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Judicial First Ctass Magistrate at Vikarabad District. 2. The station House Qffi6s1, vir.irJJo ijiii;"6i"t,or, Vikarabad District. t 4. One CC to Sri An'uor 5. Two cD copies 'anti Praneeth' Advocate toPUCl ly.t".t"Hf,thePublic er.js"crtoililsht;;io,. the srate of rerangana at *,,M, HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 ORDER CRLP.No.8087 ot 2022 z':-:::\ Trlt S I'a f. o ( ,s (., -j ,')() 21 tlJE 205 '-c'.ti) ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION L g 7,0