Telangana High Court
Suresh Babu Kopparappu vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3007 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.108 of 2022, on the file of the learned XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Commissionerate, 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, Shamshabad Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, against the petitioner stating that the deceased was his son, working in E- Com Express Company. On 21.12.2020, the deceased attended his duty and after completion of his duty, he returned home and thinking about something. At about 12:00 hrs the deceased informed respondent No.2 that the petitioner, who is the Supervisor/Manager of the company came to him and stated that 12 mobile phones had been lost and he had stolen them and also threatened him to hand over the said mobile phones to the Police. Due to that he felt insult and consumed poison. 2
SKS,J Crl.P.No.3007 OF 2022 Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.596 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Commissionerate.
3. Heard Sri Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar, 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 deceased committed theft in the office and he also admitted the same. The petitioner has given complaint to the Police against the deceased about the theft. Later, the petitioner came to know that the deceased committed suicide. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- to the family of the deceased as they lost their earning son and informed that he did not want to continue the present case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague and 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3007 OF 2022 there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner harassed the deceased due to which he 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.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged allegation shows that the petitioner 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.
7. 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.
8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3007 OF 2022 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 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."
9. 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."
10. To prove the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the deceased committed suicide 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3007 OF 2022 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.
11. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are that he suspected the deceased stating that he committed theft of mobile phones in his company and also filed complaint against the deceased, due to which, the deceased felt shame and committed suicide. The statement of witnesses also supports the same. Whereas, the deceased committed theft is an admitted fact and there is evidence to that effect. Further, the petitioner gave Rs.13,00,000/- to the family of the deceased and they also agreed that he did not want to run the case. Whereas, the agreement between the parties cannot be considered as the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 306 of IPC and the same requires trial. Whether the conduct of the petitioner constitutes an offence or whether it amounts to instigation under Section 107 of the IPC, can be decided after full-fledged trial only.
6
SKS,J Crl.P.No.3007 OF 2022
12. 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.
13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 08.04.2024 SAI