Madras High Court
R.K.Ramasamy vs State Rep. By Its on 25 August, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :25.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
R.K.Ramasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State rep. By its
Additional Superintendent of Police
(Headquarters)
Tirupur District
2. M.Paulsamy ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records on the file of the Sub-Court, Udumalpet in S.C.No.29 of
2016 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ramesh, Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Muthukumarasamy
For Respondents: Mr.E.Rajthilak for R1
Government Advocate [Crl.Side]
Mrs.A.Madhumathi for R2
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
ORDER
The present Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to call for the records on the file of the Sub-Court, Udumalpet in
S.C.No.29 of 2016 and quash the same.
2. The petitioner is the correspondent of R.K.R.School and the
defacto complainant is the uncle [periyappa] of the deceased, who was
studying XI standard in the said school. The allegations levelled against the
petitioner, as per the FIR, is that he along with one Maheswaran,
Commerce Professor, on the instigation of the Headmaster had abused the
deceased with filthy language owing to the reasons that he had not paid
the fees, studied well, threatened and attacked the deceased in front of
other class mates that they would kill him and the same would be
suppressed by remitting Rs.5,00,000/- and would hang him in the rope.
Seeking to initiate charges and punishment on the petitioner and other
persons, the defacto complainant / 2nd respondent had lodged a complaint.
3. According to the petitioner, he is the founder of R.K.R. Higher
Secondary School. The school would always produce competent,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
disciplined, matured and patriotic citizens and many of the students are
highly qualified scientists, doctors, engineers, commanders, lieutenants
and administrators with high moral and ethical standards. The petitioner
received several medals for the best teacher during the years 1986-1987
and 1993-1994. As such, the 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint
alleging that his brother's son, namely, Anuj committed suicide and
whenever the petitioner, viz., correspondent visits the school, he would
enter into the class room and scold the deceased for not studying properly.
Furthermore, in the three suicide notes written by the deceased, only 1st
accused name has been mentioned and the petitioner's does not find place
in the same. Therefore, filed this petition to quash the same.
4. Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the ingredients of the offences under Section 305 of IPC have not at all
been made out and the court below erred in taking cognizance of the
offence under said section by issuing summons. Further, the petitioner is a
responsible correspondent, who acts according to his conscience and they
have done nothing to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. It
is clear that the deceased had not mentioned the name of the petitioner in
the suicide note.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that at no
point of time, the parents had specifically made any complaint as against
the petitioner / A.2 about the ill-treatment made to the deceased and even
as per the prosecution, the main cause of death seems to be only by the
action of A.1 and he had been implicated by the deceased and
proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in support of his
contention has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
(i) Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. And Another reported
in 1995-Supp-3-SCC-438
(ii) Mahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) Supreme
Court Cases 731] ,
(iii) Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in [2001-
9-SCC-618]
(iv) Sanju Vs. State of M.P. Reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371
(v) Sashi Prabha Devi Vs. State of Assam reported in 2006-
Cri.LJ-1762]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
(vi) In the case of Nettai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal reported
in (2005) 2 Supreme court cases 659,
(vii) In the case of Sonti Ramakrishna Vs. Sonti Shanthi Shree
and another reported in [2009-1-SCC-554].
7. Further, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also
relied on the following Judgments:
(a) P.Raja Mohan Vs. State in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19293 of 2014
(b) V.Vijayalakshmi Vs. State and Another in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3775
of 2012
(c) Prabha Maharani Vs. State and Another in Crl.O.P.(MD)
No.11832 of 2009
(d) Smt.Aroma M.Philemon Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another in
Crl.M.P.No.12 of 2013
(e) N.Anjali Devi and C.Veeran Vs. the Superintendent of Police and
Inspector of Police in Crl.O.P.No.24858 of 2006.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the
above Judgments represented a plea that the petitioner is 69 years old and
he is the Correspondent of the School and since there is no offence made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
out as against the petitioner in the complaint as well as in the suicide notes,
the learned counsel prayed to quash the proceedings as against the
petitioner.
9. On the other hand, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Government
Advocate [Crl.Side] appearing for the 1st respondent, by taking this Court to
line by line of the suicide notes submitted that after thorough investigation,
charge sheet has been filed, further, there are as many as nearly 50
witnesses. That apart, it is a case of suicide where the case is pending
trial, hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has cited the
following Judgments to substantiate his contention:
(i) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 9
Supreme Court Cases 734 [Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal
and Another]
(ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 7
Supreme Court Cases 780 [Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
11. On the other hand, Mrs.A.Madhumathi, learned counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent vehemently submitted that on account of
the threat, attack and abusive words made by the petitioner and others, the
deceased was driven to the extreme end of committing suicide. Though
the defacto complainant/2nd respondent as well as mother and father of the
deceased requested the school authorities not to scold the deceased, the
petitioner and other accused had never taken note of it, but continued to
threaten the deceased, due to which, their adorable kid had died by way of
hanging. The petitioner and other accused should not be liberated from the
clutches of law, hence seeks to dismiss the petition.
12. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
documents and Judgments placed on record.
13. On the perusal of the documents, it is seen that earlier charge
sheet was filed under Sections 323, 387 and 306 of IPC and later on, it was
altered to Section 306 of IPC and thereafter, the charge sheet was filed
under Section 305 of IPC. From the charge sheet, it could be seen that
petitioner, who is the correspondent is arrayed as A.2, and one
Maheswaran, who is the commerce teacher as well as the class teacher, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
arrayed as A.1 and one Rajendran, who is the head master is arrayed as
A.3. While that being the case, the said Maheswaran/A.1 had abused the
the deceased, namely, Anuj, who was studying in XI standard with filthy
language in front of other students and attacked him. Further, when the
mark card / progress card is issued [usually issued once in a month] at that
time, the headmaster would call the deceased to his room and assault the
deceased with wooden log stating that he has scored low marks.
Moreover, whenever the petitioner / A.2 visits the school, he would move
towards the class room, scold, attack and threaten the deceased by stating
that the deceased is not studying well, as such, the parents of the
deceased had requested the petitioner / A.2 as well as other persons not to
scold and attack the deceased since the deceased is panic. However, the
petitioner and others had not at all heeded to the request of the parents of
the deceased, they kept on scolding, threatening and assaulting the
deceased. On 14.02.2012, the said Maheswaran had scolded the
deceased, as he was not wearing shoes and that he had scolded that if he
died, he would give Rs.5,00,000/-to the deceased family, but the deceased
stated that he could do like that, for which, the said Maheswaran had
assaulted the deceased by pulling his hair.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
14. It is pertinent to point out that the deceased had written suicide
notes and the same would prove that the petitioner has only abused the
deceased, since he had scored low marks. For better reference, the
suicide notes are extracted hereunder:-
Suicide Note:1
“,e;j rk;gtj;ij ahUk; jh;bfhiy vd;W vz;zptplhjph;fs;/ ,J
bfhiyjhd; th;g;gU
[ j;jp bra;ag;gl;l bfhiy/ ,jw;F fhuzk; v';fs; bghUshjhu
Mrphpah; gp/knfco;tud; Mthh;/ fhuzk; jtuhd fhuzj;ij Twp mtUf;F rhjfkhf
xU rpy khzth;fis Vw;ghL bra;J bfhz;L jtuhd gHpia vd;kPJ Rkj;jpdhh;/
mjdhy; mth; vd;id T.C th';f itg;gjhft[k; my;yJ Xl itg;gjhft[k; my;yJ
moj;J bfhs;tjhft[k; Twp vd;id ,t;thW bra;aitj;jhh/; ,jw;F jf;f
eltof;iffs; nkw;bfhs;s ntz;Lk; ,y;iy vzpy; kuf;fKoahj mstpw;F VjhtJ
Vw;gLk;/”
Suicide Note:2
“ehd; ,we;jjw;F fhuzk; vd; bghUshjhu Mrphpah; gp/knfco;tud;. Mrphpah;.
vd;id kpul;o eP ,we;Jtpll; hy; cd; tPlo; w;F 5.00.000/- Ugha; jUntd; vd;whh;/
mjw;F ehd; Twpndd;/ mg;go ,wf;f KoahJ vd;nwd; mjw;F mth; vd; fhJf;F
nky; ,Uf;Fk; Koiag; gpoj;J Ml;o vd;id moj;J mth; ,t;thW bra;a itj;jhh;/”
Suicide Note: 3
“ez;gh;fSf;F jdpg;gl;l Kiwapy; xU ntz;Lnfhs;/ ,d;bdhU ngg;ghpy;
cs;s bra;jpia ahhplKk; xg;gilf;fhky; vd; jk;gpf;fpl;ilnah my;yJ vd;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
bgw;nwhh;fsplnkh je;JtpL';fs;/ v';fSf;F ve;j rk;ke;jKk; ,y;yhj tifapy; ,Ue;J
bfhs;S';fs;/ ehd; v';nfahtJjhd; gpzkhf fplg;ngd;/ Kf;fpakhf jpf; Ukpy;
ghU';fs; vd;Dila xnu xU ntz;Lnfhs; bra;a[';fs;/ Rk;kh tplhjp';f/”
15. On going through all the suicide notes, line by line, it is crystal
clear that the petitioner's name or designation does not find place in the
said suicide notes. The deceased was very keen that the said suicide
notes should not be reached to the hands of the school authorities. The
word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or
inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, is the
necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the
words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to
the uttered with mens rea. In respect of offence under Section 305 of IPC
is concerned, whether the act of the petitioner herein would attract the
ingredients of the offence. For convenience, the Section 305 of IPC is
extracted herein:-
“305 . Abetment of suicide of child or insane person – If
any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person,
any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of
intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission
of such suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment
for life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
shall be liable to fine”
16. From the above definition, there should be direct act of
instigation by the accused. Further, the accused should have intentionally
aided the deceased to commit suicide. In the case on hand, as per the
available evidence, there is nothing to show that there was any intentional
act by the petitioner for the deceased to commit or intentionally aided or
there was no illegal omission on the part of the petitioner for the deceased
to commit suicide. The word used by the petitioner [whenever he visits to
school] is that he scolded the deceased to study well and the allegation
against the petitioner is that though he was aware of the threat, attack and
abusive language made by the Economics Professor, Maheswaran as well
as the Headmaster, he, being correspondent, failed to have control over
the said teachers and thereby failed to prevent the deceased. The said
word is normally used by all the teachers and it does not instigate or abet
any person to commit suicide.
17. A bare perusal of the statements of the witnesses as well as the
complaint, clearly reveals that general allegations of being scolded and of
being hit by the teachers have been made. But no details about the
possible injuries caused to him have been detailed. Moreover, even if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
these allegations are taken as unrebutted facts, even then, there is no
evidence to show that the petitioner had instigated or intentionally aided the
commission of suicide. The words used by the complainant is that the
petitioner, being correspondent of the school also provoked the teachers to
scold, threaten and assault the deceased, is a vague allegation. Further,
the petitioner whenever visits the school would proceed to classroom of the
deceased and would scold the deceased that he is not studying well, would
not tantamount to an active act by an accused and would not tantamount to
provoking a person to commit suicide. Also it is the duty of the teachers to
maintain discipline of the school. It is unthinkable that while trying to
maintain the discipline of the school, the teachers would instigate or
intentionally aid the commission of suicide by a student.
18. It is to be noted that in the case of Swamy Prahaladdas Vs.
State of M.P. And Another reported in 1995-Supp-3-SCC-438, the
accused was charged for an offence under Section 306 of IPC on the
ground that the accused during the quarrel is said to have remarked to the
deceased to go and die, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that mere
words uttered by the accused to the deceased to go and die were not even
prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
19. Apart from the above, in the case of Mahendra Singh Vs. State
of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 731], the accused was
charged for an offence under Section 306 of IPC based upon the dying
declaration of deceased, which reads as under:
“my mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder
brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband
Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my
sister-in-law. Because of those reasons and being harassed, I want to die
by burning”
considering the definition of abetment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found
that the charge and conviction of the accused in the above said case for
the offence under Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable merely on the
allegation of harassment to the deceased and further held that none of the
ingredients of abetment were attracted on the statement of the deceased.
That apart, in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
reported in [2001-9-SCC-618] while considering the charge framed and
conviction for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, on the basis of dying
declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, in which she had stated
on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had
poured kerosene on herself and had set fire, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
acquitted the deceased stating that ' A word uttered in a fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be
said to be instigation.....'
20. Besides the above, in the case of Sanju Vs. State of M.P.
Reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that accused telling the deceased to go and die would by itself not
constitute the ingredients of instigation and presence of mens rea is
necessary concomitant of instigation. Further, in the case of Sashi Prabha
Devi Vs. State of Assam reported in 2006-Cri.LJ-1762], the allegation is
that the accused, a head mistress of a school wrongly struck off the name
of the deceased from the Register of the students in Class X, which
induced the deceased to commit suicide and the High Court of Gauhati had
held that there was no evidence showing that the accused had acted at any
point of time, suggested or hinted for commission of suicide and when the
accused was entitled to correct any wrong order, as in fact, the deceased
had not passed her class IX examination, no case of instigation or
abetment of suicide was made out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
21. Also, in the case of Nettai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal
reported in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 659, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by upholding the order of High Court, quashed the charge sheet filed
under Section 306 of IPC on the ground that the offence under Section
would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of crime. In
the case of Sonti Ramakrishna Vs. Sonti Shanthi Shree and another
reported in [2009-1-SCC-554], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
though normally threshold interference should not be made under Section
482 of Criminal Procedure, quashing of the complaint on the facts was just
and necessary. It has also held that words uttered in a fit of anger or
emotion without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.
22. By applying the above said well settled principles pronunciated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions cited supra to the
present case, on perusing the suicide notes of the deceased, which
according to the learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] is also a strong
evidence in favour of prosecution, it is clear that whenever the petitioner
visits to the school, he would proceed to the class room of the deceased
and scold the deceased that he is not studying properly. The statement of
the witnesses would suggest that class teacher and headmaster would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
abuse, attack and threaten the deceased. In the said circumstances,
certainly it cannot be said that the petitioner had in any way instigated the
deceased to commit suicide or was responsible for the commission of
suicide by the deceased boy.
23. Further, the learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] had
referred to the following Judgments:-
(i) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 9
Supreme Court Cases 734 [Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal
and Another] wherein it is held that 'a plain and simple reading of the
suicide note makes it crystal clear that the appellant had not just humiliated
and insulted the deceased on one occasion. In fact, it is evident that the
appellant perpetually humiliated, exploited and demoralised the deceased,
which hurt his self-respect tremendously. The words used are, to the
effect that the appellant always hurts the self-respect of the deceased and
he was always scolding him. The appellant always made attempts to force
him to resign. The statements recorded by the police under Section 161
Cr.P.C., particularly, one made by KS Widow of the deceased and also
those of various other family members, corroborate the version of events,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
as given in his suicide note.'
(ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 7
Supreme Court Cases 780 [Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh] wherein the case eminently projects a case of psychological
harassment. A woman has her own space as a man has. She enjoys as
much equality under Article 14 of the Constitution as a man does. The
right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
cannot be violated by indulging in obnoxious act of eve teasing. No one
can compel a woman to love. She has the absolute right to reject.
The said cases referred by the learned Government Advocate [crl.side]
does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
24. Taking into consideration of the entire materials on record and
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered
view that the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the commission of
suicide committed by the deceased boy, as there was no instigation or
abetment on the part of the petitioner in the commission of suicide by the
deceased boy. Therefore, the charge sheet filed against the petitioner for
the offence under Section 305 of IPC in S.C.No.29 of 2016 is liable to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
quashed and accordingly, it is quashed.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking Order
ssd
To
1. The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore
2. The learned Judicial Magistrate,
Pollachi.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
ssd
Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016
25.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
