Smt M.Lakshmi Kiran 2 Others vs The Sate Of A.P. Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 2516 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2410 OF 2016

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC'), is filed to

quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No.2 of 2016 on the file of

the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and 4 (v)

and (vi) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Ragging Act,

1997. Petitioners herein are A.1, A.4 and A.6 in the said

case.

2. On the strength of a report lodged by 2nd

respondent herein, police registered a case in crime No.37

of 2014 of Tadepalli police station and after completion of

investigation, laid charge sheet, which was registered as

P.R.C. No.2 of 2016 before the learned Magistrate.

3. The brief facts of the case are that 1st petitioner/

A.1 is mother of deceased G.Krishna Priya; A.2 is paramour

of A.1; A.3 is cousin of A.2; 2nd petitioner/A.4 is mother,

A.5 is father, 3rd petitioner/A.6 is younger maternal aunt,

and A.7 is brother, of A.1. A.8 is classmate of the

deceased.

Persons shown at sl.Nos.9 to 11 of the charge sheet

are classmates of the deceased and A.8, and as no case is

made out against them, police deleted their names from the

case.

2nd respondent/informant is father of the deceased.

In the year 1983, he married L.W.5-Dr.T.Padmaja Rani and

they were blessed with one son. In the year 1990, he

again married 1st petitioner/A.1 as second wife and out of

their wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter (who is

deceased) and she was studying 3rd year MBBS course in

Katuri Medical College, Chinakondrupadu village,

Prathipadu mandal at the time of occurrence of the

incident. For some time, 2nd respondent/informant and

1st petitioner/A.1 resided in rented house of A.3 at

Kakumanuvarithota, Guntur. A.2 used to visit house of

A.3 frequently and developed friendship with 2nd

respondent/informant and 1st petitioner/A.1 and became a

family friend. Later, 2nd respondent/informant purchased

another house for 1st petitioner/A.1 and the deceased at

Butchaiah Thota, Guntur and shifted them to that house.

A.2 continued to visit house of 1st petitioner/A.1 and

maintained rapport with her. About 3 years prior to the

date of incident, misunderstandings arose between 2nd

respondent/informant and 1st petitioner/A.1, and they

started living separately on their own accord.

A.2 developed illegal intimacy with 1st petitioner/A.1

and used to visit house of A.1 often, for which the deceased

expressed her unwillingness. But, 1st petitioner/A.1

quarreled with the deceased and sent her out from the

house. On that, the deceased started living with 2nd

respondent/informant, who used to drop her near old bus

stand for college bus to go to medical college and bring

back by 5.00 PM.

A.8 is classmate and close friend of the deceased. The

deceased shared her entire feelings with A.8. A.8 joined

with A.1 to A.7 and started insulting the deceased at the

college before other students, pointing out her family and

personal issues, as the deceased is daughter of 2nd wife,

and humiliated her and also insisted the deceased to live

with 1st petitioner/A.1.

On 11.2.2014, at about 6.30 PM, at the request of the

deceased, 2nd respondent/informant dropped her at the

house of L.W.6-B.Anisha Priya. At about 7.43 PM, the

deceased sent 3 messages to 2nd respondent/informant

intimating that she was going to commit suicide and she

left suicide note in 'SPM note book', and she left house of

L.W.6-B.Anisha Priya without intimation, and committed

suicide by jumping into Krishna River.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners;

the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent-

State and Sri T.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for 2nd

respondent/informant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that in order to constitute an offence punishable under

Section 306 IPC, it is essential that all the ingredients of

the offence under Section 107 IPC have to be made out;

that there is no harassment immediately before committing

the suicide by the deceased, and there is no nexus between

the alleged harassment and the committing of the suicide.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for 2nd respondent/

informant opposed the contentions raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioners and has taken this court to the

statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and

submitted that there are accusations against all the

accused and that this is a premature stage to interfere into

the matter, and all the defences that are raised by the

learned counsel for the petitioners can as well be raised in

the course of trial.

7. The learned Assistant Public prosecutor

appearing for 1st respondent-State concurred with the

contentions advanced by the learned counsel for 2nd

respondent and opposed the quashing of the impugned

proceedings stating that in order to arrive at the

correctness or truthfulness, it is essential that trial has to

take place wherein truth will be culled out.

8. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers

of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to

prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order

under the code or to secure the ends of justice.

9. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the

power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised

very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the

rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified

in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or

genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the

report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs.

Ch.Bhajanlal and ors.1, wherein the Apex Court held,

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process

AIR 1992 SC 604

of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

10. This Court perused the record. Admittedly, the

deceased died committing suicide committed on

11.02.2014. A perusal of the suicide note of the deceased

would go to show that the deceased seems to be under

mental depression. She categorically mentioned that for

the last 3 years, her mind was totally disturbed. According

to the suicide note, what her mother was doing was not

correct. She also alleges that 1st petitioner/A.1 was moving

with A.2, and for them, to meet frequently, they used to

send the deceased to the house of her friend, and whenever

1st petitioner/A.1 had dispute with A.2, the former used to

call the deceased to her house. It is also clear from the

suicide note that whenever 1st petitioner/A.1 and A.2 had

an altercation, the former used to insist the deceased not to

go to the college and stay back in the house. This kind of

quarrels and fights between 1st petitioner/A.1 and A.2

caused much mental depression on the deceased.

11. Suicide note contains more than 10 pages. On a

perusal of the same would further go to show that all the

accusations are made as against her mother and about the

intimacy of her mother with A.2, because of which the

deceased was not able to stay at the same place and had

gone to the house of 2nd respondent/informant. One day

before the date of the incident, she writes in her diary that

she is afraid of suicide and also expressed that her hands

are shivering daddy.

12. The deceased accused 1st petitioner/A.1, who is

her mother, and A.2 for her to come to that stage. But,

there is absolutely no reference in respect of petitioners 2

and 3/A.4 and A.6. A perusal of the FIR also goes to show

that there is no reference in respect of petitioners 2 and

3/A.4 and A.6.

13. Learned counsel for 1st respondent relied on the

averments in the statements recorded by police of 2nd

respondent/informant and others. A perusal of the

statements would go to show that 2nd respondent/

informant and others also made accusations against

petitioners 2 and 3/A.4 and A.6, who are none other than

mother and maternal aunt of 1st petitioner/A.1. But,

absolutely no date has been mentioned as to when such

incident had taken place. Admittedly, for the last 3 years

before the death of the deceased, she was living in the

house of 2nd respondent/informant. Except vague and bald

allegations that the petitioners 2 and 3/A.4 and A.6 too

harassed the deceased, there are no other specific

allegations against them.

14. To constitute an offence punishable under

Section 306 IPC, it is essential that the ingredients of

Section 107 IPC (abetment) have to be satisfied. Section

306 IPC reads thus:

"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, or shall also be liable to fine."

From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is

clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC,

the prosecution has to establish- (i) that a person

committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was abetted

by the accused. In other words, an offence under Section

306 IPC would stand only if there is an 'abetment' for

commission of the said crime. The essential ingredients of

'abetment', as stated in Section 107 IPC, are as follows:

"Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who-firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly-intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."

It is manifest that under all the three situations,

direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in

the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring

home the offence under Section 306 IPC.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a

decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State

of Maharashtra and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held as under: (paragraph 80).

"In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the

2021 SCC OnLine SC 315

investigation or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases

of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of

the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.

xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

He also placed reliance on the judgment in Gurcharan

Singh v. State of Punjab3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

thus: (paragraph 21)

"It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the

(2017) 1 SCC 433

commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualise the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide."

16. From a reading of the FIR and the suicide note

of the deceased, it is clear that there is absolutely no

averment that has been made against petitioners 2 and

3/A.4 and A.6. Entire accusations are directed against 1st

petitioner/A.1 and A2. Remoteness of culpable acts or

omissions rooted in intention of accused to actualize the

suicide would fall short of the offence of abetment essential

to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

It has to be seen whether there are any contiguity,

continuity, culpability and complicity acts of the accused.

A perusal of the entire material goes to show that all the

accusations are made as against 1st petitioner/A.1. Insofar

as petitioners 2 and 3/A.4 and A.6 are concerned, nothing

has been alleged in the FIR and the suicide note of the

deceased. In fact, there is no reference to the names of

petitioners 2 and 3/A.4 and A.6 in the suicide note. But,

at a later stage, improvements have been made in the

statements under Section 161 CrPC to that extent. Even in

Section 161 CrPC statements, vague and bald allegations

are made to that extent. This Court is of the opinion that

the acts alleged against the petitioners 2 and 3/A.4 and A.6

are not indictable acts and that the proceedings as against

petitioners 2 and 3/A.4 and A.6 is nothing but abuse of

process of Court. Insofar as 1st petitioner/A.1 is

concerned, since there are specific accusations against her,

there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings

as against her, and the Criminal Petition is dismissed as

against her.

17. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly

allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C. No.2 of 2016 on the

file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, are

quashed insofar as petitioners 2 and 3/A.4 and A.6 are

concerned.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 14.06.2022.

DRK

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2410 OF 2016

14.06.2022 DRK