Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Tadepalli Police Station vs Ch.Bhajanlal And Ors.1 on 8 August, 2023

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2322 OF 2023

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.11 of 2023 on

the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

2. A charge sheet has been filed against the

petitioner/sole accused in crime No.653 of 2022 of

Tadepalli police station, for the offences punishable

under Sections 306 and 420 IPC. The allegations, in

brief, of the charge sheet are as follows.

The deceased Pappireddy Manjunadha Reddy is

son of 2nd respondent/informant. His marriage was

performed with L.W.2-Sravanthi Niveditha Reddy about 5

years prior to registration of crime. He chose to do

contract works like his father. In the year 2020, he,

along with accused, who is well known to him,

established a contract firm M/s.Sahasra Infratech using

names of daughters of accused and L.W.2- Sravanthi

Niveditha Reddy, followed by execution of a Partnership

Deed dated 30.09.2020 and started their work with

Administrative Office at D.No.12/13, Flat No.102, Pritvi

Residency, CBIT Colony, near Pillar No.126, Attapur,

Hyderabad, with equal share of 50% under their

business terms. They got some sub contract works to do

Storm Water Drain works at Nellore and after completion

of all the works, they received total 4 bills amounts. But,

without giving any money to the deceased, the accused

took the total bill amount and used huge money towards

his personal use. The deceased asked the accused

several times to pay his share of money in the total bills

and to give money to pay EMIs of bank loans which were

availed by them under their firm name. The accused

harassed the deceased mentally without giving any

money or his share, to the deceased. Believing the

deceitful words of accused to start a firm jointly to

execute the contract works and to share the money

equally, the deceased along with the accused, started the

contract business by entering into a partnership deed,

but the accused, even after receiving money under four

bills, did not pay any share to the deceased and also did

not give any money to pay EMIs to the banks towards

loans obtained by him. Vexed with acts of cheating and

harassment made by accused, the deceased committed

suicide on 19.08.2022 by hanging to ceiling fan.

Basing on a police report lodged by 2nd respondent,

police registered the aforesaid crime and filed charge

sheet after completion of investigation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that even accepting the entire accusations in the charge

sheet to be true, no prima facie case for the offence

punishable under Section 306 or 420 IPC is made out.

He further submitted 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 satisfied, and those ingredients are absent

in the case on hand so as to attract the offence under

Section 306 IPC. He further submitted that the

allegation of mere non-payment of share in the bill

amounts, would not amount to abetment to commit

suicide. Hence, he prayed to quash the impugned

proceedings as continuation of the same is nothing but

abuse of process of Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was

permitted to take out personal notice to 2nd respondent,

and accordingly, the learned counsel took out personal

notice and filed proof of service. But, there is no

representation on behalf of 2nd respondent.

5. On the other hand, learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent-State

contended that there are specific accusations as against

the petitioner herein, and the petitioner is alleged to have

cheated the deceased and thereby caused mental agony,

and because of the acts and words uttered by petitioner

herein, the deceased is alleged to have taken the extreme

step of committing suicide. He further contended that

the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner are all disputed questions of fact, which have

to be gone into, during course of trial. Hence, he prayed

to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. 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.

7. 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,

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

"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 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."

8. Heard. Perused the record. It is alleged that

the deceased is son of 2nd respondent. He married

L.W.2-Sravanthi Niveditha Reddy. In the year 2020, he,

along with accused, who is well known to him,

established a contract firm M/s.Sahasra Infratech using

names of daughters of accused and L.W.2-Sravanthi

Niveditha Reddy, followed by execution of a Partnership

Deed dated 30.09.2020 and started their work, with

equal share of 50% under their business terms. They got

some sub contract works to do Storm Water Drain works

at Nellore and after completion of all the works, they

received total 4 bills amounts. It is further alleged that

the petitioner/accused, without giving any money to the

deceased, took the total bill amount and used huge

money towards his personal use. Though the deceased

asked the accused several times to pay his share of

money in the total bills and to give money to pay EMIs of

bank loans which were availed by them under their firm

name, he did not do so and harassed the deceased

mentally without giving any money or his share, to the

deceased. It is further alleged that believing the deceitful

words of accused to start a firm jointly to execute the

contract works and to share the money equally, the

deceased along with the accused, started the contract

business by entering into a partnership deed, but the

accused, even after receiving money under four bills, did

not pay any share to the deceased and also did not give

any money to pay EMIs to the banks towards loans

obtained by him, and ultimately, vexed with acts of

cheating and harassment made by accused, the

deceased committed suicide on 19.08.2022 by hanging

to ceiling fan.

9. 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.

10. From a reading of the allegations in the

charge sheet and Section 161 CrPC statements, it is

clear that there are specific accusations of abetment.

There is specific allegation that though amount covered

under four bills was received, the petitioner/accused did

not pay any amount to the deceased towards his share

or to pay EMIs for the loans obtained from the banks,

and vexed with acts of cheating and harassment made