HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10470 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. Petitioner/A5 is questioning the pendency of criminal proceedings in PRC No.23 of 2017 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad registered for the offences under Sections 498-A & 306 of IPC and consequently, sought to quash the same.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that a married women by name Gaddam Saraswathi died by hanging herself on 30.10.2010. As per the case of the prosecution, A1 to A5 are responsible for the said act by abetting her to commit suicide, which is punishable under Section 306 IPC and they are also liable for punishment under Section 498-A IPC. All the accused were charge sheeted.
3. The facts of the case as could be gathered through the complaint as well as the contents of the charge sheet are that the deceased Gaddam Saraswathi was given in marriage to A1 and the said marriage is outcome of a rape case that is pending against A1 wherein the deceased Saraswathi is the defacto complainant. After marriage, A1 2 being the husband and A2 being the mother-in-law and A3 being the sister-in-law harassed the deceased Saraswati for the sake of dowry. One month after the marriage, A1 left to America and subsequently the deceased Saraswathi was necked out of the house by A2 and A3. A5 being the advocate helped and instigated A1 to A3 during course of harassment. Vexed with her life, Saraswathi committed suicide by hanging herself by leaving a suicide note on 30.10.2010. These facts formed basis for the Police to investigate into and laid charge sheet.
4. The trial Court, having examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 9 and marking Exs.P1 to P10 found that A1 to A3 who faced trial were not guilty of the offences and acquitted them. A4 and the present petitioner/A5 did not face trial and were shown as absconding.
5. This Court, by order 17.02.2022 quashed the proceedings against A4 subsequent to the judgment of the Sessions Court. Present petitioner/A5 also stands on the same footing as that of A4, who was also a professional advocate.
3
6. In this case, as per the version of the prosecution, the petitioner-A5 instigated A1 to A3 in harassing the deceased Saraswathi by giving wrong advises thereby extending support. Admittedly, under the Advocates Act, 1961 protecting the interest of the client is the prime duty of an advocate. In doing so, if the advocate gives advise regarding the ways by which the client could come out from the clutches of law, that does not mean that he has instigated, and abetted to do an illegal act.
7. A perusal of the contents of the charge sheet, the complaint given by the de facto complaint and more particularly the suicide note that is alleged to have been written by the deceased Saraswathi goes to show that the allegation made is only that the petitioner being an advocate was giving wrong advises to A1 to A3 and taking support of the said advocate, they were acting against the interest of the deceased Saraswathi and thereby subjected her to hardship. That does not mean that the petitioner being an advocate, instigated/abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Thus the ultimate conclusion is that the petitioner/A5 does not fall either within the purview of 4 Section 498-A IPC or Section 306 IPC, which according to the version of the prosecution, were committed by the petitioner/A5 herein. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/A5 would only amount to abuse of process of law.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner-A5 in PRC No.23 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.11.2022 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.10470 OF 2022 Date: 29.11.2022.
kvs 6