Telangana High Court
Sangepu Sagar vs The State Of Telangana on 4 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2331 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S.C.No.82 of 2022, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Jagtial Rural Police Station, Jagtial District, against the petitioner stating that his grandson was staying in Dubai. One year ago prior to filing of the complaint, his grandson has taken loan for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the petitioner. Later, he came to know that the petitioner is harassing his grandson to pay the said loan amount. Five months ago, his grandson came from Dubai and informed the same to him. One week ago, the petitioner made a call and asked his grandson to pay the loan amount. Thereafter, the petitioner came to his house and harassed his grandson. Due to unbearable harassment of the petitioner, his 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2331 OF 2022 grandson fell sad and committed suicide by consuming insecticide Poison. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.457 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Jagtial.
3. Heard Sri D. Shashi Preetham, learned counsel representing Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague and there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner harassed the deceased due to which committed suicide. Learned counsel further submitted that without proper investigation, police filed charge-sheet. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged allegation shows that the petitioner 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2331 OF 2022 harassed the deceased, due to which, the deceased committed suicide. Whether the harassment amounts to instigation requires trial. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 306 of IPC does not constitute. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2331 OF 2022 facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
8. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:
"306. Abetment of suicide:- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
9. To prove the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the deceased committed suicide due to the abetment of the petitioner/accused. Section 107 of IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing, if he, firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; secondly, engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; thirdly, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
10. In the present case, there were disputes between the petitioner/accused and the deceased. The complaint and statement of the witnesses reveal that when the deceased returned from Dubai the petitioner called him and harassed him 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2331 OF 2022 to repay the loan, due to which, he committed suicide. Whether the same constitutes an offence or whether it amounts to the instigation under Section 107 of the IPC, can be decided after full-fledged trial only.
11. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 04.04.2024 SAI 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2331 OF 2022