Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Karasani Jyothika vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 August, 2022

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6808 of 2021

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

seeking to quash the charges in S.C.No.515/2021 against the

petitioners on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

for the offence punishable u/Sections 323, 504, 306 r/w 34 IPC.

2. 1st petitioner studied in Vision School. According to the

complaint 1st petitioner studied in Vision school and the son of the

defacto complainant had acquired job and the 2nd petitioner instigated

the 1st petitioner to bet her son and accordingly, the 2nd petitioner who

is the father of the 1st petitioner instigated his daughter to beat Fardhin

Vali with chappal, since then he was under depression and inactive.

Thereby they have threatened for lodging a complaint in police station

by coming to their house. Due to which, the complainant's son

committed suicide by hanging on 20.12.2020 at about 1 p.m.

Accordingly, she made a complaint to initiate action against the

petitioners and basing on the said complaint, the respondents have

registered F.I.R. No.1132/2020 dated 20.12.2020 under sections 306

r/w 34 IPC against the petitioners 1 and 2 and accordingly, the

respondents have investigated and laid charge sheet and the same was

numbered as Sessions Case No.515/2021 on the file of the learned II

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have

submitted that the complaint itself is not maintainable in view of the

observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as such the ingredients

of Section 306 IPC would not attract to the instant case. Though the

deceased is harassing the 1st petitioner, the same was brought to the

notice of the defacto complainant and in fact defacto complainant

herself has stated in a telephonic conversation requesting the 2nd

petitioner to file a police complaint.

4. To support his contention, he has also placed voice record

statement along with present petition. On perusal of the voice record

conversation happened on 18.12.2020 which clearly discloses that the

defacto complainant has submitted that the action of the son of the

defacto complainant against the girls is not tolerable and she requested

that with the actions of the son she is getting blood pressure and she

herself stated that it is better to make a complaint to police or elders.

5. At the time of arguments, twice time is granted to the counsel for

the defacto complainant with regard to correctness of the voice record

conversation though they have not denied about the said conversation

but the counsel has submitted that it cannot be taken into

consideration.

6. On perusal of the record and after hearing both sides, it is a fact

that some incidents were happened. But fact remains that even before

the said incidents, the issue was brought to the notice of the defacto

complainant through phone and she also acceded to the acts of the

deceased.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that even according to Section

161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by the police it clearly indicates that

the ingredients of Section 306 IPC would not attract in the instant case.

To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied

on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in between Geo

Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.1 in which it is recited that:

"Insofar, as the suicide note is concerned, despite our minute examination of the same, all we can say is that suicide note is rhetoric document, penned down by an

Criminal Appeal No.1164 of 2021

immature mind. A reading of the same also suggests the hypersensitive temperament of the deceased which led him to take such an extraordinary step, as the alleged reprimand by the accused, who was his teacher, otherwise would not ordinarily induce a similarly circumstanced student to commit suicide"

And in another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in

between Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.2

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:

"Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. Except the selfserving statements of the complainant and other witnesses stating that deceased was in love with the appellant, there is no other material to show that appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. From the material placed on record it is clear that on the date of incident on 04.05.2018 deceased went to the house of the appellant and consumed poison by taking out from a small bottle which he has carried in his pocket. Merely because he consumed poison in front of the house of the appellant, that itself will not indicate any relation of the appellant with the deceased. „Abetment‟ involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no [email protected](Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. There is nothing on record to show that appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306, IPC. Even with regard to offence alleged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed that except vague and bald statement that the appellant and other family members abused deceased by uttering casteist words but there is nothing on record to show to attract any of the ingredients for the alleged offence also. This Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)1 had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person‟s suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect. In the said judgment it is held that it is impossible to lay down any straightjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. In the case of 1 (2009) 16 SCC 605 [email protected](Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal2 in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306, IPC this Court has held as under :

Criminal Appeal No.1022 of 2021

"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC." In the judgment in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr.3 this Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC. Paragraph 25 of the judgment reads as under :

"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive 2 (2010) 1 SCC 707 3 (2010) 12 SCC 190 [email protected](Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." In the judgment in the case of Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapur4 this Court has considered the scope of the provision under Section 482, Cr.PC and has laid down the steps which should be followed by the High Court to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing of proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.PC. Paragraph 30 containing the four steps read as under :

"30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:

30.1.Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

30.2.Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?

30.3.Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the 4 (2013) 3 SCC 330 Crl.A.S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4.Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."

In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in both the

judgments, it is clear that the allegations made in the charge sheet and

the complaint would not attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC

against the petitioners.

8. In view of the law decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the charges

in S.C.No.515/2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Guntur are hereby quashed.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also

stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 11.8.2022 RD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH