Telangana High Court
Maddineni Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5956 OF 2023
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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.24 of 2021, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 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, Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, against the petitioners and other accused stating that he is the Manager of Ramakrisha lodge, Bhadrachalam. On 17.12.2013 one G.N. Venkateswarulu came to the said lodge and asked for single room. On the next day, the room boy rang the door bell for cleaning the room but the said person did not open the door. Then respondent No.2 saw through the hole of the door and found that the said person was hanging with lungi to the ceiling fan. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.334 of 2013 for the offence 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5956 OF 2023 punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Bhadrachalam.
3. Heard Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners 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 petitioners submitted that initially the FIR was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Basing on the suicide note the Police registered a case under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC. The suicide note does not contain the names of the petitioners. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague and there is no evidence to prove that the petitioners 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 petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged allegation shows that the petitioners 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5956 OF 2023 took money from the deceased and refused to register the land on his name and demanded him to pay more money. But the deceased could not bear the harassment and 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 attract. 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 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5956 OF 2023 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."
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 petitioners/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. 5
SKS,J Crl.P.No.5956 OF 2023
10. In the present case, there were disputes between the petitioners and the deceased. The suicide note which was written by the deceased is of four pages, wherein the names of the petitioners were also there and they received money from the deceased under the guise of registration of land and thereafter did not register the land and demanded more money, due to which, he committed suicide. Whether the same constitutes an offence under Section 306 of IPC or whether it amounts to instigation under Section 107 of 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:16.04.2024 SAI