THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6981 of 2019
ORDER: -
1. The petitioners are A2 and A3. Initially they have filed this
present criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the
FIR No.218 of 2018 on the file of Chilakalapudi Police Station,
Machilipatnam. While pending the criminal petition, the 2nd
respondent has completed the investigation and filed charge sheet
and the same was numbered as PRC No.21 of 2020 on the file of the
II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Magistrate, Krishna
District. Hence, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 and 2 of 2022, which
are allowed; accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to amend their
prayer. Therefore, the petitioners are seeking to quash the
proceedings in PRC No.21 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class Magistrate, Krishna District.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
Husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner No.2
by name Adusumilli Venkata Rao, being absolute owner of the
property admeasuring Ac,1-37 cents of wet land in R.S.NO.205/1A of
Peyyeru Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District entered into an
agreement of sale dated 25-05-2015 with one Akula Bala Bhaskara
Rao of Bheemavaram Town for sale consideration Rs.91,10,500/-
agreed with certain terms and conditions. Taking advantage of one of
the conditions in the agreement with regard to the interest part, the
said Bala Bhaskara Rao never bothered to pay balance sale
consideration as agreed under the agreement dated 25.05.2015.
Having failed to fulfil his obligations under the agreement, the 2
husband of the 1st petitioner is pressing for completion of
transaction, said Bala Bhaskar Rao through his friend, Chunduri
Sitha Rama Vara Prasad lodged false complaints to the District
Collector, Krishna in Meekosam Programme against the family
members of petitioner, alleging that Venkata Rao and 2nd petitioner
created fabricated pass book and title deed in respect of schedule
property and other land and sold it to them. Said complaint was
forwarded to Mudinepalli Police Station and after due investigation
and enquiry, Mudinepalli Police submitted report mentioning that
false allegations were foisted against the petitioners.
3. Having failed in their attempt to influence the revenue officials,
the agreement holder Bala Bhsakara Rao lodged a false complaint
against the petitioner herein alleging that he approached the
petitioner and his son demanding registration of the land and they
refused to do so and by managing the police got registered the said
complaint as FIR No.67 of 2018, dated 22-02-2018. In fact on that
particular point of time, the first petitioner and the husband of the 1st
petitioner were out of the country, hence, the contentions in the said
FIR that said Bala Bhaskar Rao approaching the Venkata Rao
demanding for registration is absolutely false and the same was also
referred by the police as civil in nature in their final report dated 10-
10-2018. Accordingly, the same was closed by the learned Magistrate
on 11.10.2018.
4. In view of the above aspects, husband of the petitioner and
father of the petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.1 issued legal notice
dated 27-03-2018 to the said Bala Bhaskara Rao, cancelling the
agreement of sale dated 25-5-2015 for non-performance by said Bala
Bhaskar Rao and same was got belated reply by Bala Bhaskar Rao 3
with false allegations, to which again the husband of the petitioner
No.1/ accused No.1 has also got issued rejoinder to reply on 29-11-
2018; thereafter, on receipt of the joinder reply, said Bala Bhaskar
Rao kept quiet and not approached any civil Court for ascertaining
his rights.
5. After receipt of legal notice dated 27.03.2018, even before
replying to the said notice, one Chunduri Sitharama Vara Prasad,
(husband of the 1st respondent) lodged a false complaint and the
same was registered as FIR No.86 of 2018 under sections 420, 323,
506 read with 34 of IPC, on the file of Mudinepalli Police Station and
the same was quashed by this Court on 28.02.2019 in Crl.P.No.212
of 2019. While pending the same, on 03-12-2018 husband of the 1st
respondent /defacto complainant went to "Prajavani Program" and
submitted representation alleging that the officials are not taking
action on his complaints/representation by taking bribes. In the last
paragraph he stated that the petitioners and his family members are
responsible for his death and by submitting the said representation
in Prajavani Programme, he consumed pesticide and accordingly he
died. Based on the complaint of the 2nd respondent with the above
said allegations, the complaint was forwarded to the SP of Police by
the District Collector through his covering letter dated 03-12-2018 to
take necessary action.
6. Though notices were served on the 2nd respondent and proof of
service filed through USR NO.5937 of 2018, but 2nd respondent has
not chosen to appear before this court.
7. On perusal of the complaint made by the 2nd respondent,
learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are have nothing to do 4
with the death of the husband of the 2nd respondent. In fact,
husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner has
entered an Agreement of Sale with one Bala Bhaskar Rao for the
agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1-37 cents in Peyyeru village,
Mudinepalli Mandal. It is admitted fact that there are issues existed
between the 1st accused i.e., father of the 2nd petitioner and one Bala
Bhaskar Rao with regard to the above said property.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that there are no
transactions between the deceased- husband of the 1st respondent
with accused No.1 i.e., husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the
2nd petitioner. Except filing of the complaint by the deceased person
against the father of the 2nd petitioner under section 420 and other
sections of IPC stating that he is brother of said Bala Bhaaksar Rao,
there are no other allegations against the petitioners.
9. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased husband of the
2nd respondent was habitual offender, in fact, the rowdy sheet was
also opened against him by the Bheemavaram I Town Police Station
and the same was numbered as History Sheet No.455 of 2010. Apart
from that according to the letter received from the deceased, there are
no specific allegations against the petitioners, which attracts
abetment under section 306 of IPC. He only stated that in Peyyeru
village, in R.S.No.205/1A, Ac.1-37 cents of Government value per
Acre is Rs.3,00,000/- but the applicants have created a market
valuation certificate that government value as Rs.600000/- per acre
and paid Rs.74000/- per Ac.1.37 cents for Land conversion. For
Ac.1.37 cents land, as per Government value they have to pay
Rs.3,69,000/-. They have cheated the government for about 5
Rs.3,00,000/- by paying less amount. Accordingly, he has requested
the Government to conduct enquiry. Despite his repeated requests
since 10 months, no such enquiry has been conducted by the officers
by taking bribes from the petitioner. Finally he stated to take action
against the petitioners herein. Based on the said complaint, 1st
respondent has registered FIR under Section 306 of IPC.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submitted that petitioners are nothing to do with the death of the
husband of the 2nd respondent. In fact, the husband of the 1st
petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner has entered into an
Agreement of Sale with one Bala Bhaskar Rao. Further he conteded
that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in catena of cases, laid down the ratio
that until and unless there are specific overt acts and abtement
against the accused, Section 306 of IPC would not attract in general
circumstances.
11. To support his contentions learned counsel for the petitioners
relied on the following judgments passed by the Apex Court -
In Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana1, wherein it is held that -
"It is necessary to refer to Section 306 IPC and Section 107 IPC which 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.
107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First.--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
1 (2020) 15 Supreme Court Cases 359 6
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.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing."
8. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable 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. 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. (See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal1).
12. In Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another2 wherein
the Apex Court held that -
"What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased."
2
2021 SCC OnLine SC 873 7
13. Also in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat And Another3, the Apex Court held that -
" We have gone through the suicide note though it is not yet on record. Shri Tulsi pointed out that even if this suicide note is accepted as it is, along with the FIR, no ingredients of Sections 306 and 294 (b), IPC could be spelt out from the same. We have gone through the whole FIR as well as the so-called suicide note which seems to have been signed on 4.2.2008 wherein he had complained about the stale incidents dated 15.10.2007 to 19.10.2007. It seems that it is 17 days after that, that he was found dead 23.2.2008. It is claimed by his wife Harshida Ben that she got a call from the Gujarat High Court informing her that a suicide note was found and that she should search for such note in her house subsequent to which she claimed to have found the suicide note bearing the signature of the deceased, thus bringing the origin of alleged suicide note under the cloud of suspicion.
It is on this that Shri Tulsi contended that all this is absolutely absurd. If a person writes a suicide note on 4.2.2008, he had no business to send the suicide note to High Court and keep a copy thereof in the house. Learned Senior Counsel said that even if all this is accepted as it is, there is nothing to suggest that the appellant has committed any offence or that any offence could be spelt out from the said suicide note or the FIR much less offence under Sections 306 and 294, IPC.
In order to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306, IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.
......
In the prosecution under Section 306, IPC, much more material is required. The Courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross- examination by the appellant/accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and 3 (2010) 8 SCC 628 8
material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant/accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta Vs. State of W.B. [2005 (2) SCC 659], this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused."
14. Finally learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the
decision in Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4
wherein it is held that -
"9. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. Except the self- serving 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 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
4 2021 SCC Online SC 737 9
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 circumstance 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 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."
15. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the above referred decisions, in the instant case since there are no
specific allegations or overt acts, which attract the ingredients of
Section 306 of IPC, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable
to be quashed.
10
16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in PRC No.21 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class Magistrate, Krishna District is
quashed against the petitioners.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 02.05.2022 Pnr
