Madras High Court
V.Sujatha Bai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.12.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
V.Sujatha Bai ...Petitioner
Vs
The State of Tamil Nadu,
The Inspector of Police,
T7 – Tank Factory Police Station,
Avadi, Tiruvallur,
Tamil Nadu – 600 109. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in P.R.C.No.11 of 2017 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and quash the proceedings as
against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ramesh, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Deepan Uday
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.11
of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur against the
petitioner/2nd accused for the offence punishable under Section 305 of I.P.C.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that the deceased Divya aged
about 18 years was studying in the college known as Vel Tech. The present
petitioner/A2 was working in the above college as Assistant Professor and
A1 was working as Computer Operator and also working as Warden. Both
of them were stayed in the same hostel. On 18.3.2014 at about 7.00 p.m.
during study hours when using of cellphones were prohibited, A1 found the
deceased speaking over cellphone outside the hostel. Immediately A1
received the cell phone from the deceased and removed the sim card and did
not hand over the cellphone to the student, informed that she will handover
the same to the Chief Warden viz., A2. Thereafter, A1 handed over the cell
phone to A2. On seeing some obsene messages exchanged by the deceased
A2 the Petitioner herein appears to have stated the following words:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
“Ú x©Q« fhnyÍš go¢á »Ê¡f njitÆšiy. cd¡F
ãÇ‹ágš»£nl v‹FaÇ ïU¡F. Ú it¤âU¡F« á«fh®il
bfh©Lth. Ú všyh« cÆnuhL ïU¡fwijÉl br¤J¤
bjhiyayh«.”
The deceased thereafter committed suicide in the hostel on 19.3.2014.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
vehemently contended that it is a unfortunate incident where the student has
committed suicide on her own, particularly when she was found using the
cell phone during prohibited hours. As the warden found some obscene
messages in the cell phone the deceased has committed suicide. Therefore,
it is his contention that due to the unrest among the students the case has
been foisted against the petitioner who has arrayed as 2nd Accused and the
other accused A1 is not before this Court.
4. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the
entire prosecution materials collected in final report even taken in face
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
value, the same will not constitute an offence of abetting, under section 305
I.P.C. The entire allegations unearthed against the Petitioner from the
statements of the witnesses clearly show that the deceased in fact had affairs
with one Gopinath. The entire allegations targeted against the petitioner is
that on seeing some obscene messages in the cell phone seized from the
deceased the Petitioner stated that, “what is the point in studying here.
Instead of you go and die.” Except that there is no allegation unearthed from
the Petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that due to the
arrest the Petitioner was suspended and she lost her job and during the
Covid both husband and wife infected with Covid and husband died in the
hospital, she not even seen and performed his last rites and rituals. At any
event it is his contention that the entire offence has not been made out.
Therefore, it is the fit case for the Court to exercise its power under Section
482 Cr.P.C.to quash the final report. In support of his contention, he relied
upon the following judgments:
1. M.Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
Superintendent of Police [(2011) 3 SCC 626]
2. Sonti Rama Krishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and
another [(2009) 1 SCC 554]
3. Kishori Lal Vs. State of M.P. [(2007) 10 SCC
797]
4. Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of
M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371]
5. Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others Vs.
R.S.Nayak and another [(1992) 1 SCC 225]
6. R.K.Ramasamy Vs. State rep. by the Additional
Superintendent of Police (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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
7. R.Marimuthu Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector
of Police (Crl.O.P.No.16295 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.10071 and 10072 of 2017) in the
High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated
25.07.2019.
8. Jayanthi and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police
[(2017) 2 LW(Crl) 132], [(2017) 3 MLJ(Crl)
123]
9. V.Vijayalakshmi Vs. State and Another [(2013) 2
MLJ(Crl) 463]
10.N.Anjali Devi and C.Veeran Vs. The
Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of
Police [MANU/TN/1953/2009]
11.Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. and
Another [(1995) Supp(3) SCC 438]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the
Petitioner has not properly handled the deceased. She is nearing 18 years at
the relevant point of time and the incident the Petitioner seized the cell
phone and not returned it and informed the deceased that she will report to
the principal. Therefore, the conduct of the Petitioner in not properly
handling the deceased has to be taken into consideration in this matter and
opposed to quash the final report.
6. Normally the Court will not exercise power under Section 482
Cr.P.C.when the materials collected by the prosecution prima faciely
indicate that there are allegation which required to be established before the
trial Court. But at the same time, when the entire materials collected by the
prosecution and final report taken in face value do not constitute an offence,
there cannot be any difficulty for the Court to exercise the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.to quash the proceedings to prevent the unnecessary
ordeal of trial. The case on hand as narrated above unfortunately a pathetic
case. The deceased is a student from a college where the present Petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
joined as a Professor as per the prosecutor and A1 is also joined as a
Computer Operator in the college besides she was also working as Hostel
Warden. The entire prosecution also indicate that the use of cell phones
during the study hours in the evening in the hostel is prohibited.
7. On 18.3.2014 at 7.00 p.m.during study hours, the deceased was
found talking to someone over cell phone which was noticed by A1 and she
seized the cellphone and kept the sim card with her. Thereafter, when the
next day the deceased asked her sim card A1 produced the deceased before
the Chief Warden/the Petitioner herein and handed over the simcard to her.
On seeing some messages exchanged in the cellphone by the deceased said
to have stated that “there is no need to study. Instead of studying you go
and die.” and also informed that she will report to the Principal. Thereafter,
the deceased appears to have committed suicide. It is relevant to note that
when the materials collected by the prosecution do not itself constitute any
offence, there is no purpose in driving the persons to undergo ordeal of trial.
The grave men of the offence punishable under section 305 I.P.C is abetting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
suicide. To bring a person within the ambit of Section 107 I.P.C.,which
defines abetment, it must be shown by the prosecution that
(a) there must be instigation by the accused to commit the offence.
(b) the accused engaged in conspiracy to commit the offence
(c) to aid into commission of offence
only these three ingredients which are essential for proving the abetment to
establish on record the prosecution can succeed in establishing the charges
under Sections 305 or 306 of I.P.C. The abetment to constitute an offence
there must be some active suggestion or support to the commission of
offence. The Word instigate found in Section 107 IPC literally means to
provoke, incite, urge on or to bring about by persuasion to do any thing as
held by the Apex Court in Kishori lal vs. State of M.P. [(2007) 10 SCC
797] Therefore, when the words which are using in normal circumstances
without any intention of driving any person to end his/her life, such words
never to be construed as an instigation to instigate a person to commit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
suicide. The entire prosecution case itself indicate that the deceased has
found talking cellphone when the same was prohibited during the study
hours. It is normal affairs in any institution that whenever any student
deviates the rules of the institution, head of the department or warden would
normally warn the student in that aspect. Therefore, merely because unable
to withstand such warning and the student took some extreme step of ending
his/her life such act cannot constitute an offence of inciting or instigating
the student to commit an office that too with intention. Even any words
spoken by the warden or professors such utterance was only for the welfare
of the students. Therefore merely because a student herself thought she was
ashamed and committed suicide due to emotional decision or over
sensitiveness such act never constitute an offence of abetment on the part of
the teachers. This Court is also cannot ignore the fact that many cases are
filed due to unrest among the students in order to prevent any further law
and order issues, the prosecution shirking the responsibility just filing the
final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
8. In Sonti Rama Krishna's case (supra) the Apex Court has held that
the words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention cannot
be termed as instigation and thereby quashed the final report by exercising
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. In Sanju Alias Sanjay Sing Sengar's case (Supra) in para 12 the
Apex Court held as follows:
12. ... ... ... ... ... Even if we
accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the
deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the
ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes
incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable
action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea,
therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is
common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with
mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional.
10. In Swamy Prahaladdas's case (supra) the accused remarked to the
deceased to go and die. Such a circumstances the Apex court has held that
the prosecution do not stand on the quash.
11. Similar views also taken by this Court and followed the above
judgement and quashed the proceedings in Crl.O.P.Nos.4186 of 2016 and
16295 of 2017.
12. Considering the above well settled position of law and also
indicated that except the allegation that the petitioner has remarked that
instead of studying to go and die there were no other allegations as against
the petitioner or 1st Accused, that they forced the deceased to commit
suicide. Only when allegations indicate that their act was such which has
driven a student to take such extreme step by ending her life it can be said
that their act come under abetment. The very allegation unearthed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
prosectuion indicate that the student has took emotional decision as some
obscene messages found in her cellphone which was noticed by the warden
and informed that the same would be placed to the principal. Such conduct,
in view of this Court never amounts to instigation or incitement. Even
assuming such utterances has taken place, such utterances made by the
Petitioner being the well wisher and guardian of the students at the relevant
point of time, she has uttered only for the benefit of the student to prevent
such incident. Further, the investigation reveals that the student has also
fell in affair with somebody. In such view of the matter merely because the
girl committed suicide and such utterance made without any intention as
only corrective measures would not constitute an offence under section 305
I.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the continuation of the
proceedings is nothing but futile exercise and no purpose would be served
to the prosecution. In such view of the matter entire proceedings in PRC
No.11 of 2017 on the file fo the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur is quashed.
13. 1st Accused is not before this Court, the only allegation against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
A1 is only seizing of the mobile phone from the student and informing the
same to the Petitioner/A2. Such view of the matter, merely because she has
not approached this Court by way of 482 Cr.P.C.petition she cannot be
forced to undergo the ordeal of the trial. In such view of the matter this
Court taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and well settled
law in this aspect as no materials unearthed to prove the allegations of
abetment which resulted in suicide, the entire prosecution, not only against
this Petitioner but also against the 2nd Accused is quashed.
14. In the result, the entire proceedings in PRC No.11 of 2017 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur is quashed and the Criminal
Original Petition is ordered.
21.12.2021
ggs
Internet:Yes / No
Index:Yes / No
Speaking / Non-Speaking order
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate,
Ambattur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
T7 – Tank Factory Police Station,
Avadi, Tiruvallur,
Tamil Nadu – 600 109.
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ggs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
Crl.O.P.No.11039 of 2017 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7299 & 7300 of 2017
21.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
