Madras High Court
Venkateshapandi vs The State Represented By on 8 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2022
in
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.723 of 2022
Venkateshapandi ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Poovanthi Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.43 of 2021)
2. Sarulatha ... Respondents
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to call
for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.43 of 2021 on the file of the 1 st
respondent and quash the same as against the petitioner/Accused 3.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan
For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
For R2 : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First
Information Report in Crime No. 43 of 2021, registered for the offence under
Section 174 Cr.P.C subsequently altered to 306 IPC, on the file of the first
Respondent.
2.In this case, there are totally three accused and the petitioner is the third
accused. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the second
respondent was working in Maldives. After returning to India, he started
working as a Manager at “Sakthi Petrol Bunk” at Padamaathur village, owned
by the first accused. Thereafter, her husband entered into partnership with the
first accused and shared the profits. He also entered into partnership with the
second accused and one Krishnan, who owned “Essar Petrol Bunk”, at
Perumalpatti Village, Tirupathur. As both the business ended in loss, the
accused persons insisted the defacto complainant's husband to return the money.
Thereafter, on 15.03.2021, the deceased had dinner with the defacto
complainant and on 16.03.2021 at about 6AM, she received a call that her
husband hanged himself to death. On the complaint received from the second
respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2021, under
section 174 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the first respondent implicating the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2022
also as third accused. The first respondent altered the offence, on verification of
suicidal note written by the deceased.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that
the First Information Report is not an encyclopedia and as such, it cannot be
quashed on its threshold. There are specific allegations and averments made as
against the accused persons even at the time of lodgment of complaint.
However, the first respondent registered the offence into Section 306 of I.P.C.,
in which, the petitioner is arraigned as third accused. He also produced the
suicidal note runs into 18 pages. In the suicide note of the deceased, there are so
many specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence under
Section 306 of I.P.C. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment
of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in 2021 (2) MNW (Cr.) 90
(SC) - Neerharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others. The Honourable Supreme Court of India held that in the case of the
petition seeking to quash the F.I.R – whether the High Court would be justified
in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or no coercive steps to
be adopted during the pendency of the quash petition and issued following
directions:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2022
“i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter
XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of
any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will
not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not
to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather
than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate
in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the
other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would
result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process
should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2022
4.The suicidal note states that the accused persons are reason for his
suicide. Except the said words, no other words uttered. The petitioner had no
specific overt act of instigating the deceased to commit suicide. In order to
bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated
under Section 107 IPC, on the part of the accused, with an intention to bring out
suicide of the person concerned, as a result of that abetment is required. Further
the abetment involves a mental process of instigating the person or intentionally
aiding the person for doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, charge cannot be sustained.
To attract the offence 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.
5.The relevant portion of the suicidal note of the deceased reads as
follows:-
“T.g[Jhh; btq;fnl\;ghz;o kpf ey;yth;. eakhf
ngrf;Toath;. cjtp bra;fpnwd; vd;W cjtp bra;thh;.
Mdhy; fz;og;ghf tl;oia tR{y; bra;J tpLthh;.
vd; gzj; njit mtrpak; mwpe;J gzk; bfhLf;f Kd;
tUthh;. ehDk; mtruj;jpw;F mthplk; ifePl;o thq;Fntd;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
jpUk;g bfhLf;Fk; nghJ 1 yl;rk; &gha;f;F 1 ehs; tl;o
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2022
500/- &gha; vd;w tpfpjk; rpy khjq;fSf;F bfhnuhdh
fhyq;fspy; mthplk; thq;fpa gzj;ij rhpahf vd;dhy;
jpUk;g bfhLf;fKoatpy;iy. Mdhy; tl;oia rhpahf
fl;ote;njd; vd;whYk; Kw;wpYk; vd;dhy; mthplkpUe;J KG
flid milj;J btsptu Koatpy;iy. gj;J ehl;fSf;Fs;
60>000/- tl;o vd;W tR{y; bra;a bjhlq;fptpl;lhh;. rpy
ehl;fSf;F Kd;g[ Kj;Jhl; tq;fpapy; mtuJ fGj;J brapid
mlF itj;jhh;. vd; bgahpy; mlF itj;J gzj;ij
tl;of;;fhf vLj;J bfhz;lhh;. ,g;bghGJ vd; fGj;jbrapid
jpUg;gpf; bfhL vd;W beUf;fo bfhLj;J kpul;Lfpwhh;;.
rpwpJ Tl ,uf;f kpy;yhj tl;o tR{y; bra;a[k;
btq;fnlr ghz;oaplk; ehd; thq;fpa bjhifia tpl Kd;W
klq;F mjpfk; tl;o tR{y; bra;Js;shh;. khjk; xd;W
1>60>000/- tl;o kl;Lk; brYj;Jfpnwd;.
vd;dhy; Koatpy;iy mthplk; ,Ue;J kPs;tjw;F
ntW tHpa[k; ,y;iy. vdJ ,e;j Kotpw;F btq;fnl\;
ghz;oa[k; Kf;fpa fhuzk;.”
6.The suicidal note written by the deceased revealed about the difficulties
faced by him and his inability to meet the financial crunches and also his
inability to repay the same. The deceased was subjected under pressure for
repayment and for financial difficulties. There is nothing to indicate that there
was instigation by the accused, which were driven the deceased to extreme step
to commit suicide.
7.The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the
deceased to commit suicide is must for the offence under section 306 IPC. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2022
the case on hand also, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner
has instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In this case, there is absolutely
no material for offence under section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the suicidal
note. Therefore, it would not be enough to constitute an abetment to commit
suicide and elementary ingredients of Section 306 IPC are absent in this case.
8.In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in Crime No.43 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police is
hereby quashed, insofar as the petitioner alone. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PNM/PS
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
PNM/PS
To:
1.The Inspector of Police,
Poovanthi Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
ORDER IN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2022
in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.723 of 2022
08.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
