Madras High Court
Chithra vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.3126 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.3126 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.2090 and 2091 of 2025
Chithra ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Gomangalam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
Crime No. 91 of 2024.
2. Nagarajan ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.
to call for the records with respect of the charge sheet in PRC.No.67 of 2024
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Nalliyappan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1)
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3126 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in PRC
No.67 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi, thereby
taking cognizance for the offences under Section 306 of IPC in Crime
No.91 of 2024, as against this petitioner.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as the first accused in PRC No.67 of
2024. There are totally two accused. On the complaint lodged by the brother
of the deceased, the first respondent registered the First Information Report
in Crime No.91 of 2024 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter altered
it to Section 306 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, as per the complaint of the
second respondent, his brother, viz., Karuppasamy, was working as a Village
Administrative Officer. He was having a breathing problem, for which he
had taken medicine continuously and further, he was unmarried. He was
having mental stress since he was not able to get married. Hence, he used to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
make requests before his parents to make arrangements for his marriage and
the same was intimated to the second respondent by his parents. Later, on
23.04.2024, at about 6.00 a.m., the mother of the second respondent called
the second respondent through a mobile phone and intimated that the
second respondent's brother had consumed a poisonous tablet. Hence, she
was taking him to the Government Hospital, Pollachi, through an
ambulance. Thereafter, the second respondent went to the hospital and
found that doctors were providing treatment to the said Karuppasamy.
3.1. While so, on enquiry with his brother Karuppusamy, it was
informed that he had consumed poisonous tablets. Later, on enquiry with the
mother of the second respondent, he came to understand that on 22.04.2024,
Karuppusamy came to the house at night hours and as usual, the said
Karuppusamy was in a depressed situation and argued with his mother that
he was not having any interest to live further. Thereafter, he had taken his
mother's mobile phone and went to the open terrace of the house, and
thereafter, at about 11.00 p.m., the mother of the second respondent went to
the open terrace and found that he was speaking with someone else on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mobile phone. Later, on 23.04.2024, at about 5.45 a.m., the mother of the
second respondent went to the open terrace of the house and found that the
said Karuppusamy had consumed poisonous tablets.
3.2. Immediately, she had taken him in an ambulance to the
hospital, where he died at about 7.45 a.m. Subsequently, the second
respondent herein made a complaint before the first respondent, stating that
since the deceased Karuppusamy was having a breathing problem and was
unmarried, hence, he was in a depressed situation and in the course of that,
he consumed poisonous tablets along with sleeping tablets and died.
Further, the second respondent has specifically stated that apart from the
above-said reason, there is no other reason for the suicide of the said
Karuppusamy. Hence, the complaint was registered under Section 174 of
Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the first respondent altered the
offence under Section 306 of IPC on the strength of the suicide note
recovered from the deceased.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that she is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a physically challenged person, and the allegations against the petitioner are
that she had given false news against the deceased, portraying him as a
corrupt person and the same was published in a news magazine. Therefore,
he committed suicide. The said news was published in the month of
February, whereas the deceased consumed poison in the month of April, that
too for the reason that he suffered from illness. In fact, all the relatives of
the deceased had categorically stated that he committed suicide only
because of his illness. He further submitted that the petitioner had no
intention to abet the deceased to commit suicide. In support of his
contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Jayadeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported
in 2025 (1) MWN (C.) 1 (SC).
“17. Section 306IPC penalises those who abet the
act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under
this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused
contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This
involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined
in Section 107IPC. These conditions include the accused
instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried
out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that
directly led to the person taking his/her own life.
18. For a conviction under Section 306IPC, it is a
well-established legal principle that the presence of clear
mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere
harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused
guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate
an active or direct action by the accused that led the
deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea
cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident
and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational
requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not
satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and
conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of
suicide. The same position was laid down by this Court in
S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190,
wherein it was observed that:
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction
cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that
in order to convict a person 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.”
4.1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would also
submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has not committed any offence
as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2024 for the offences under Section
306 of IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken
cognizance in P.R.C.No.67 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Pollachi. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit
that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been
examined in this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials placed on record.
7. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner is none
other than the Village Administrative Officer's Assistant and was working
along with the deceased. On a perusal of the suicide note dated 23.04.2024,
it categorically reveals that only because of the petitioner, he suffered
mental agony and committed suicide by consuming poison. When the
deceased was working as Village Administrative Officer, the petitioner
made false allegations against him and also gave false information to the
news magazine, which was published, thereby the deceased got tarnished
among the public. Therefore, the above judgement cited by the petitioner is
not applicable to the case on hand.
8. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second
respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2024
for the offences under Section 306 of IPC. After completion of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been
taken cognizance in P.R.C.No.67 of 2024 by the trial Court and it is
pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the
present petition.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported
in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with
the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High
Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and
record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and
therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It
could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits
or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the
final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the
inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the
disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation
of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no
power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment
dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of
M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the
petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not
embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that
the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint
which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences
complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether
the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety,
would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able
to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later
stage i.e., during trial.
12. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the
initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal
proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this state.
The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial.
Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final
report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.67 of 2024 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the
grounds before the trial Court. Since the petitioner is physically challenged
person, her personal appearance is dispensed with and she shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the
petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of
copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the
time of passing judgment. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
06.02.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation/Yes/No
kv
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No. II,
Pollachi.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Gomangalam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
