Mani vs The State
2023 Latest Caselaw 6725 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6725 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 June, 2023

Madras High Court

Mani vs The State on 21 June, 2023

Crl OP No. 8909 / 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.06.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Criminal Original Petition No. 8909 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P. Nos. 5793 & 5794 of 2021
1. Mani
2. Sampath
3. Sivaraman
4. Manickam ... Petitioners
Versus

1. The State,
Rep. by Inspector of Police,
Edappadi Police Station,
Salem District.

2. Gowri ... Respondents

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records pertaining to S.C.
No. 22 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned first Additional District
Judge, Salem and quash the same by allowing the present criminal
original petition.

For Petitioner : Mr. R. Jayaprakash.

For Respondent : Mr. A. Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl OP No. 8909 / 2021

Mr. C.S. Saravanan for R2.

ORDER

The petition is to quash the proceedings in S.C. No. 22 of 2021 on

the file of the first Additional District Judge, Salem filed against the

petitioners for the offence under Sections 306 read with 115 of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 4 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of

Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.

2.It is alleged in the final report that the defacto complainant's

husband obtained loan from the petitioners agreeing to pay exorbitant

interest; that since the defacto complainant's husband suffered financial

crisis, he was not able to repay the interest as promised; that the

petitioners had abused him in filthy language and hence, he was forced to

consume pesticide on 26.01.2018; and that because he was taken

immediately to the hospital, he survived; and that hence, the petitioners

are guilty of the aforesaid offences.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is

absolutely no material in the impugned final report to show that the

petitioners had charged exorbitant interest; that merely because a loan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP No. 8909 / 2021

had been granted to the defacto complainant's husband, it cannot be said

that the petitioners charged exorbitant interest. The allegations have been

invented only to deprive the petitioners of the loan amount. Further, the

learned counsel submitted that the prosecution for the offence under

Section 306 read with 115 of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable.

Section 115 deals with abetment and Section 306 deals with abetment of

suicide. The learned counsel submitted that there cannot be an abetment

to abetment of suicide. He relied upon the Judgment of the Honourable

Supreme Court in Satvir Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and

Others reported in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 633 in support of his

submission.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are

allegations which are to be adjudicated only before the trial Court and

hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5.The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the

second respondent is not interested in pursuing the case.

6.This Court on perusal of the impugned final report finds that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP No. 8909 / 2021

charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained.

The observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Satvir Singh's

case (cited supra) apply to the facts of the instant case. Paragraph No.8

of the said Judgment reads as follows;

“8. Learned Sessions Judge went wrong in convicting the appellants under Section 116 linked with Section 306 IPC. The former is “abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment — if offence be not committed”. But the crux of the offence under Section 306 itself is abetment. In other words, if there is no abetment there is no question of the offence under Section 306 coming into play. It is inconceivable to have abetment of an abetment. Hence there cannot be an offence under Section 116 read with Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the High Court was correct in altering the conviction from the penalising provisions fastened with the appellants by the Sessions Court.” Since the defacto complainant's husband has not committed suicide, the

charge under Section 306 read with 115 of the Indian Penal Code is

unsustainable.

6.As regards the offence under Section 4 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu

Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, this Court finds that there is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP No. 8909 / 2021

no material in the final report suggesting that the said exorbitant interest

was charged and paid by the defacto complainant's husband. Further,

this Court finds that the defacto complainant had expressed through her

counsel that she is no longer interested in pursuing the complaint which

resulted in the impugned final report.

7.Therefore, for all the above reasons, this Court is of the view that

no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending

before the trial Court. Hence, the proceedings in S.C. No. 22 of 2021

pending on the file of the first Additional District Judge, Salem is