Madras High Court
R.Mohanakrishnan vs State Rep. By on 3 January, 2022
Crl. O.P. No. 8860 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl. O.P. No. 8860 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.Nos.6380 and 6381 of 2017
R.Mohanakrishnan
...Petitioner
Versus
State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police(L&O)
C3, Sevenwells Police Station,
Parrys, Chennai-600 001.
(Crime No.793 of 2015) ...Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, praying to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in
S.C.No.64 of 2016 pending on the file of V Additional Sessions Court at
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
for Mr.M.Ganeshan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and
quash the charge sheet in S.C.No.64 of 2016 pending on the file of V
Page No:1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 8860 of 2017
Additional Sessions Court at Chennai.
2. The crux of the charge as per the prosecution is that the deceased has
borrowed the loan from Gunasekaran and Mohanakrishnan. They insisted the
deceased to repay the loan amount and the same created mental agony to him,
thereby, he committed suicide on 06.08.2015.
3. The present petitioner has been arrayed as A2 in S.C.No.64 of 2016.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no materials
available as against the present petitioner. The entire allegations found in the
prosecution case is general in nature. Even the same was taken as a proof, it
would not constitute any offence under Section 306 of IPC against the present
petitioner. Hence, he prayed to quash the final report.
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the
respondent submitted that the accused has left a suicidal note, wherein the
deceased endorsed that the petitioner and others have insisted him to repay the
amount, which driven the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted
that as the final report has been filed, the same need not be quashed.
Page No:2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 8860 of 2017
5. This Court has perused the entire materials available on record.
6. It is relevant to refer the judgment in 1992 SUPP (1) SUPREME
COURT CASES – 335 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. BHAJAN
LAL AND OTHERS, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has set out the following
guidelines for quashing the complaint.
(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 FIR 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.
Page No:3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 8860 of 2017
(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
Page No:4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 8860 of 2017
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.”
7. From the said position, when the entire materials unearthed by the
prosecution taken in the face value do not constitute any offence and still
forcing the party to face the ordeal of the trial is nothing but abuse process of
law. This Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to interfere
with the final report. The entire final report and materials produced by the
prosecution indicate that the deceased was in debt trap and he was unable to
Page No:5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 8860 of 2017
meet the situation to repay the amount, due to which, he was stressed and
committed suicide on 06.08.2015. Moreover, the suicidal note left by the
deceased is only general in nature and there is no specific overt act against the
petitioner and there is no material available on record against the petitioners to
proceed with the case. The statement of the deceased recorded by the
respondent police is also in the nature of dying declaration which do not
implicate the present petitioner for the specific allegation. The statement of the
deceased and the so called suicidal note do not implicate the present petitioner.
Further, merely because the petitioner is said to have advanced certain amount
and some other lender has demanded the deceased to repay the money, cannot
be construed as an abetment to drive the person to commit suicide.
8. It is to be noted that the word abetment literally means instigates any
person to do that thing. Instigating someone literally means to incite,
provoke, urge or bring about by persuasion to do anything.
9. In the absence of any such incitement to drive the person to commit
suicide or forcing the person to take such extreme step, merely the amount has
been demanded by the lenders which resulted death of the person at the relevant
Page No:6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 8860 of 2017
point of time will not constitute offence under Section 306 of IPC. Even the
entire materials unearthed by the prosecution do not show the proximity of the
alleged demand of money and also about the death of the deceased.
10. In such view of the matter, as there is no materials available against
this petitioner to constitute offence under Section 306 of IPC, still forcing him
to face the ordeal of the trial is nothing but abuse process of law.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, following the ratio laid down in Bhajan
Lal's case and R.P.Kapur's case (supra), this Court, in exercise of its inherent
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is inclined to quash the charge sheet.
Accordingly, the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner in S.C.No.64 of 2016
pending on the file of V Additional Sessions Court at Chennai is quashed and
this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
03.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Page No:7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 8860 of 2017
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
msv/nr
To
1.The V Additional Sessions Court,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police(L&O)
C3, Sevenwells Police Station,
Parrys, Chennai-600 001.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Page No:8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 8860 of 2017
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
msv/nr
Crl. O.P. No. 8860 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.Nos.6380 and 6381 of 2017
Page No:9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 8860 of 2017
03.01.2022
Page No:10/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
