Telangana High Court
T.Sandeep Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 12 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1337 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in PRC.No.78 of 2022 on the file of the XXII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal, Cyberabad, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that on 23.11.2021 at about 18:15 hours while he was with his friends in Miyapur, his elder daughter by name Thraiksha made a call to him and asked to make a video call. Upon making a video call he noticed that his wife was hanging to ceiling fan, as such, he immediately made a call to his neighbor and asked him to verify the 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1337 of 2024 same. The said person rushed to the house of respondent NO.2 and informed him about the death of his wife. The respondent NO.2 stated that a suicide note was discovered wherein it was written that the Bagala Sandeep (petitioner/accused No.1) and one Anila aunty were harassing the deceased due to which she committed suicide. It was written that the petitioner black mailed the deceased stating that if she fails to give him Rs.2,00,000/- he would inform her husband about their illegal relation. In the said suicide note it was also written that one unknown person looted lot of money from the deceased in the name of loan approval from Bajaj Finance.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the matter and on completion of due investigation a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1337 of 2024
4. Heard Sri RA Chary, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State and Smt. Pingali Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the alleged suicide note as per the record shows three pages, whereas, the deceased concluded the said note in second page itself. He specifically contended that the keen observation of page three of suicide note would reveal that the same was added intentionally. In addition to that there is a lot of difference in the writing as well. He lamented that the Police Officials have collected the notebooks of the deceased and sent the same to forensic department for the purpose of comparison of writing but to compare writing or signature, they ought to have collected and sent some recent document. He appraised that as per the Truth Labs Forensic Services report dated 19.08.2023 there existed a variation of signature on sale deed dated 07.09.2020 with that of the alleged suicide note.
4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1337 of 2024
6. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that Section 306 of IPC does not attract in the present case. He asserted that except the alleged suicide note, no other material is placed on record to prove that the petitioner has caused any harm to the deceased or is any way responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased or has instigated her in any manner. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel appearing for respondent NO.2/de facto complainant, respectively, submitted that the contention that the page number three of the said suicide note was intentionally added is baseless and false. In support of the said submission, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, specifically asserted that sample notebooks containing the writings of deceased were collected and sent for comparison with the suicide note, whereunder, the LW.16 - Assistant Director, Telangana State Forensic Laboratories, examined the material objects and opined that the person who wrote 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1337 of 2024 the red enclosed writings in note books, also wrote the red enclosed writings in the suicide note. Therefore, while submitting that the matter requires detailed full-fledged trial, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectively, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the primary allegation leveled by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner/accused No.1 is that he has harassed the deceased to an extent that she was forced to commit suicide. In support of the said allegation, the suicide note, alleged to have been written by the deceased is filed wherein, it was stated that the deceased faced financial crunch and is suffering from debt of Rs.8,00,000/- and the builder by name Sandeep - petitioner/accused NO.1, harassed her and black mailed her to give Rs.2,00,000/-, failing in which he would spread the rumor that she had illegal relation with him.
6
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1337 of 2024
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for petitioner raises doubt with regard to the authenticity of the said suicide note, contending that the same is forged document as the page number three of the said suicide note was added intentionally and the writing thereof, does not match with the writing of the deceased.
10. At this stage, it is pertinent to extract the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another 1, wherein in paragraph No.20 it is held as follows:
"20. The scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C; to prevent abuse of the process of the Court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient 1 (2013) 10 SCC 591 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1337 of 2024 ground for proceedings against the accused and the Court cannot look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. Any document filed along with the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and proved, cannot be examined. The law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the charge-sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during the pendency of such application before the Court concerned. The High Court cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing of the charge. However, the inherent power of the Court should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution but can be save the accused from undergoing the agony of a criminal trial."
11. That apart, it is also imperative to note that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint would prima facie show that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes.
8
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1337 of 2024
12. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 2, paragraph No.14 reads as under:
"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."
13. 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 2 (2012) 10 SCC 155 9 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1337 of 2024 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
14. 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/she, firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; secondly, engages with one or more other person(s) in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; thirdly, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
15. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is noted that allegedly the petitioner/accused No.1 has blackmailed and harassed the deceased and has demanded Rs.2,00,000/- from her and due to the said unbearable harassment, the deceased committed suicide. That being so, whether the said suicide note is fabricated or written by the deceased cannot be decided at this stage and the same requires trial.
10
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1337 of 2024
16. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Umesh Kumar (supra) and State of Madhya Pradesh (supra 1) this Court is of the view that the matter needs full-fledged trial and there are no merits in this Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 12.06.2024 PT