Heard Sri v. Raghunath, learned Sr

7. Sharadha Jadagalla, Wo. Srinivas Aged about 34 Years, r Neelwai Village, Vemanpalli Mandal, Mancherial District. 8. Rajeshwari Adderapalli, Wo. Madhu Aged about 23 Years Neelwai Village, Vemanpalli I\/andal, Mancherial District 9. Prameela Manepalli, Wo. Bheemajah Aged about 40 Years, Neelwai Village, Vemanpalli lvlandal, Mancherial District. 10. Jampam Marakka, W/o. Banaiah Aged about 52 Years. Neelwai Village, Vemanpalli I/andal, Mancherial District 11. Kondapalli Laxmi, Wo. Mallaiah Aged about 49 Years, Neelwai Village, Vemanpalli lvlandal, Mancherial District ( 52 Years, Occ. rl Diskict )ss R/o. Neelwai Jcc. House Wife , Occ. Business 4'1 Years, Occ. rl District. lss R/o. Neelwai )cc. Labour R/o. )cc. Labour R/o. Occ. Labour R/o. )cc.Labour R/o. )cc.Labour R/o. '12. Mallesh Manepalli, S/o. Bondaiah Aged about 23 Years, Occ.Labour R/o. Neelwai Village, Vemanpalli lvlandal, Mancherial District.

13. Shailaia Navini alias Eqam Durqakka, Wo. Ravinder Aged about 24 Yearc Occ.Libour R/o. Neelwii Village: Vemanpalli Mandal, Mancherial District ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS No.1 to'l 3 '14. The State of Telangana,, ReP bY its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crlminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 1711012025 rn CRLP NO.'1 3500 of 2025. l.A NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crrminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to '13 herein in Cnme No. 99 of 2025 on the file of the PS Neelwai, Ramagundam, Offences U/Sec.108 r/w 3(5) BNS and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. This Petitron coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of IVs. VEROSE SANJANA, Advocate for the Petitionerband sri Jithender Rao veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No'1 and Sri K.Sanjeev, Advocate appeared for the Respondent N0.2. The Court made the following: ORDER E THE HON,BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\Jl EADA CRlll4lNAL PETITION No.13500 of 202!i ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-, rcused Nos.'l to 13 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.99 rf 2025 on the file of Neelwai Police Station, Ramagundam, regrs ered for the offences under Sections 108 read with 3(5) of BNS

2. Heard Sri V. Raghunath, learned Sr: rior Counsel representing ltls. V. Sanjana, learned counsel on r >cord for the petitioners, Sri Prabhakar Rao, learned Senior Counse I representing Sri K. Sanjeev, learned counsel on record for the resp I rdent No.2 on record and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned A j iitional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State 3 The case of the prosecution is that the pe I tioners herein have abetted the suicrde of the victim by harassing rim through a false complaint filed against him, alleging that he has outraged the modesty of a woman. Thus, unbearable with the I tmiliation, the victim alleged to have committed suicrde

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners har; submitted that the petitioners were celebrating Bathukamma festrval rnd while they ) \ I I I 2 c,t p N" l3soo "f:3;1 were in festive mood' the victim areged to have entered there with few others and have created garata and has pulled the hand of accused No 11_petitioner No.11 herein, and outraged her modesty. Thus, accused No.1i lodged a complaint on 03.10.2025 for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(z)(va)of the Scheduted castes and schedured rribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'SC & ST Act,) and Sections 76,21 and 351(2) of BNS against the victim He contends that the present case is rodged on 10.10.202s as a counter blast to the said compraint and that the petitioners herein are no way responsible for the suicide of the victim. He further submitted that on the face of it, the complaint is not sustainable as mere registration of a crime against an individual wourd not amount to abetment to provoke the victim for committing the suicide. The ingredients of the abetment do not get attracted even as per the averments made in the complaint. He further submitted that the arreged suicide note does not constitute the offence of abetment and does not spell out any harassment made by the petitioners instigating the victim to commit suicide. He further submitted that accused No.l1 being a rady belonging to Mannervarru community was treated in an obscene manner by the deceased victim and thus, she had to lodge a complaint. But, that does not mean to say that the de facto co{lainant can impricate a' these petitioners with an aregation of .t t J EfD,J Cn.P. No.175OO o12025 abetting the suicide of the victim. He further subrr itted that the petitioners herein are 13 persons altogether and it ; beyond the scope of imagination that all the 13 persons would gc and instigate the victim to die He further submitted that the pc ice have not followed the procedure laid down under BNSS a-rd have not conducted any preliminary enquiry in this case and t rat the police have utterly violated the gurdelines laid down in State rf Haryana v. Bhajanlall and thus, the proceedings against the petrt lners, among whom most of them are women, have to be quashed. lle relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Sirr yh v. State of Gujarat2, Ayyub & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh3, ar C the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at lndore in Fli jesh @ Raja Yadav v. State of M.P.a and the High Court of Delhi in \tul Kumar v. State of NCT Delhi and anothers.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 .ras submitted that the FIR in itself is nol an epitome and that tl-t suicide note reveals the names of accused Nos.1 to 3 holding them esponsible for the death of the victim. He further submitted that pr titioner No.11 herein-accused No 1'1 has lodged a complaint against the deceased ' 1992 ArR 604 '(zoro) a scc eza '2ozs srttsc 168 '2016 scc online MP 9892 '202't scc onLine Det 4107 ) 4 ETD.J ctl.P- No.ii5000t 2025 vide FIR No.95 of 2025 with all false allegations and that the deceased was a reputed person in the viilage and the aflegations in the said complaint itserf show that when there were severar peopre involved in the festive cerebrations, in that scenario, the victim entering into the said place and pulling the hand of accused No.1j and outraging her modesty seems to be absurd and since the victim is a reputed person and a responsible man, felt very much humiliated with the false complaint raised against him, which driven him to commit suicide. The victim could not withstand the mental agony and thus, committed suicide, as he lost his image and the family reputation in the society. He further submitted that the investigation is stilr in progress and thus, the proceedings cannot be quashed at the present stage and the matter needs to be investigated as it pertains to the loss of life of an innocent person and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the records

7. lt is alleged that the petitioners herein were celebrating Dasara festival on 02.10.2025 at around g.30 p.m., at Neelwai village under the leadership of accused Nos.2 to 4 under a DJ sound system wit\high volume and were disturbing the peace of the locality and ttrus,'Ihe local residents of that colony and the victim, who is the father of the de faclo complainant have complained to the local SHO, but II I ) EIO,,J Ctl.P. No t 3500 o12025 when he did not respond, they dialed to'100'. Subs:quently, the petitioners herein went to the house of the victim, abuse J him in filthy language and threatened him saying that if he comes o t, they would kill him. On the next day i.e. on 03.'l 0.2025 at around r,00 a.m., the Sub-lnspector of Police has called the victim on phone a rd asked him to come down to the police station. Pursuant to the sir re, the victim went to the police station and has informed the SHO atr ut the threats posed by the petitioners herein and asked him to protr:' t his life. lt is further alleged that the petitioners herein have got a cor rplaint lodged by accused No.1 1 against the victim alleging that t e victim has outraged her modesty. The de faclo complainant furtf ( r alleges that his father enjoys a good reputation and has good politi() rl background and that his progress in the political field was not dig estible to the petitioners herein and hence, they have come up witl- he said false allegations against the victim. lt is further alleged that 1re victim was called to the police station and was harassed and on 10.10.2025 in the morning the police have harassed him on l,hone. Thus, unbearable with the implication in the false case and t'-. harassment thereafter, the victim went out of the house on '10.1I2025 at 8.00 a.m., to the nearby forest and committed suicide by harrr ing himself. i I i 6 ETD.J Ctl.P. No., ISOO ot 2025

8. Thus, the allegation in the complaint point out a pima facie case that the victim was put to harassment, which drove him to commit suicide. The prosecution has submitted a copy of the suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased victim. A perusal of the said suicide note, reveals that accused Nos.1 to 3 herein are responsibre for the death of the victim. The contention of the rearned counser forthe petitioners is that howcan a, the 13 peopre be said to have abetted the suicide of the deceased. rt is pertinent to take note of the fact that the investigation is stiil in progress. The truth is yet to be unraveled. The proximity between the alleged act of the petitioners and the act of suicrde committed by the victim needs to be established

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is that the victim courd not withstand the humiriation and ross of his image in the society, which has driven him to commit suicide. Therefore, the proximity between the areged incident and the act of committing suicide can be cuiled out at the stage of triar. rt is further the contention of the petitioners herein that just because they have lodged a compraint, they are being targeted to have abetted the victim to qommit suicide and that the present complaint is lodged against them as a counter blast case. The truth or otherwise in the \ / 7 efo,J Crl P. No.l350a ol2A25 allegations can be culled out only after a full-fled3:d trial. The statements of the witnesses also point out the alleglr ,d harassment made by the petitioners herein against the decease: lf the prima facie case is pointed out against the petitioners-accus ( d, it is not just and proper to quash the proceedings at the nas )ent stage of investigation. But it has to be seen whether prima faci,,case is made out against all the petitioners '10. ln Madan Mohan Singh's case (2 supra) ilrd in Ayyub & Ors. (3 supra), relied on by the learned counsel for t r : petitioners, it was held that in order to bring out an offence under St ction 306 lPC, specific abetment as contemplated under Section 107 )C on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicrde of the person concerned as a resull of that abetment is equired. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or lo ab,l the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting the offencr: under Section 306 rPC. '1 'l . ln Rajesh @ Raja Yadav's case (4 supra) it vas held that:

10. Reverting back to the present case, rf we z rply the principle laid down in the aforementioned cases, it ir lpparent that the al egation of harassment of the deceased : tnnot be said to be an abetment to commit suicide. lt is apf . rent that the deceased suffered loss in business, may be ch e to the 8 C.P.No-1350oof2oZ5 ETD.J \ applicant but allegation against present applicant was false or true is not clear. At this moment, even assumed that the applicant used to harass the deceased, it cannot said to be abetment to commit suicide under section 107 of lpC as hetd in the case of the pinakrn Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat [2013 Cr L.R (SC) 955] by Hon'bre Apex Court, as such in my opinion so far as the present applicant is concerned, no charge is prima facie made out under section 306 tPC."

12. ln Atul Kumar's case (5 supra), FIR No..l40 of 2016 was registered under section 306 rpc and it was submitted that the said FIR was registered in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and two porice officers after 44 days from the date of which the suicide was committed by her husband. The petitioner in the said case is a resident of USA and interested in antique vintage motorcycles. He came across M/s. palli Motors belonging to the deceased, who was invorved in the business of such vintage motorcycres. Thereafter, the petitioner contacted the deceased and expressed his desire to purchase the vintage motor bike and the deceased quoted the price for two different BSA motor bikes and the petitioner agreed to purchase the same and transferred a sum of 4,250 US dollars on O2.OS.2O1Z into the account of one Narender Verma through banking channel, who acknowledged the receipt of the said transaction. Thereafter, even on complete payment j \ I ] a-a7 ./ 9 Cd.P No 135Oool2025 in the year 2012, the deceased did not hand over t^ I vintage motor bike The petitioner having come down to lndia, hit , issued a legal notice on 19 11.2014 to the deceased under Sectior s 420 and 406 lPC Thereafter, the petitioner left lndia and on 19.12.2C14. fhe deceased committed suicide and left behind a suic r le note naming the petitioner as a reason for taking that extreme st: r. Thus, it was held that taking recourse to one's own legal remedy >y no stretch of imagination anlounls to abetment. lt was held that. "When the facts of the present case arc analyze ( rn light of the legal principles extracted hereinabove, neither,l y live link nor any proximity between the acts of the petitiorrr r and the act of committing sutcide by the deceased is disc€,r rible The requisite rtens rea on part of the petitioner rs also acking. lt cannot be sard that the petitioner had abetted or inr;l gated the deceased to commlt suicide and that the deceas ) I was left with no option but to commit suicide. This Courl is of the opinion that necessary ingredients of the offence 5 tnishable under Section 306 lpC are not made out against the petitioner with the result that the petrtion rs allowed and the mpugned order passed by the learned ASJ directing the Tr € Court to proceed with the mafter, is set aside.,, 13, Thus, the learned counsel for the petitione r has contended that in view of the above case laws, no case is madr: out against the petitioners and it cannot be aileged that they have abe tted the suicide of the victim. But, in the present case, the allegatior; point out that the petitioners got a false complaint lodged through : :titioner No.1 1_ 10 C.I.P. No-11500o12025 accused No.'l 1 against the victim with a strong allegation that he has \ outraged her modesty and further it is contended that the victim enjoyed reputation in the village and felt humiliated due to the loss of his image and family reputation in the society, which lead him to commit suicide. Thus, the case on hand cannot be decided in the light of the aforementioned decisions. lt is already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that all the issues as to the truth in the allegations and also the proximity between the alleged act of abetment and the act of committing suicide are all triable by the trial court. lt is mentioned in the suicide note that accused Nos.1 to 3 have abetted the suicide of the victim. Even according to the complaint, it is the victim who suffered the alleged humiliation and it is only the victim who knows about the alleged harassment experienced by him and if at all accused Nos.4 to '13 have also committed any such act of abetting the suicide of the victim, then he could have mentioned the names of accused Nos.4 to 13 also. But, it is revealed from the suicide note that the victim is aggrieved by the acts of accused Nos.1 to 3 and it is specifically alleged that these three people have got the false complaint filed against the victim. Even the name of the de facto complainant in the earlier complaint vide FIR No.95 of 2025, who is accused No.1 t herein, does not figure in the suicide note. Thus, it appears that the accused No.11 was instrumental in lodging the I I EfD,J Ctl P No 1350A ol2025 complaint at the instigation of the accused Nos.1 to ' lf the incident alleged in the said complaint in FIR No.95 of 2025 is aken to be true, then lodging of complaint by accused No.1 would arr )unt to initiating a legal proceeding, which cannot be said to be ar ect abetting the surcide of the victim. The allegations of the comple i rt lodged by the son of the victim, cannot travel beyond the conterr s of the suicide note. ln the said circumstances, a prima facie ce se is made out against petitioner Nos.'l to 3-accused Nos.'1 to 3, bu holding a prima face case against accused Nos.4 to 1'l would lot be justified' Therefore, it is held that continuation of proceerl ngs against the petitioner Nos.4 to 13-accused Nos.4 to 13 would a1 ount to abuse of process of law. 14 Hence, the Criminal Petition is partly allo'r ed, quashing the proceedings in Crime No.99 of 2025 on the file < f Neelwai Police Station, Ramagundam, only against the petitioner lr t s.4 to 13 and the criminal petition against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 is disnr ;sed. Mrscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall s tand closed SD/- I PONNA KRISHNA ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR 6 iECTION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY// \ To,

1. The Station House Officer, Potice Station, Neelwai, Rarr lgundam District 2. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at - Tderabad. (OUT) 3 One CC to Ms VEROSE SANJANA Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI K. Sanjeev,Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies f PK,/PSL ri: l* { HIGH COURT DATED:2811112025 I , \- ,\\ l4 t::i 7l]m ORDER CRLP.No.13500 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION lS PARTLY I, -LOWED