Shaik Akbar vs Ananthula Manasa And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 489 Tel

        4HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
                     I.A. Nos.3 AND 4 OF 2021
                                IN/AND
             CRIMINAL PETITION No.359 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:

      The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), to quash the

proceedings in P.R.C. No.219 of 2020 on the file of the VI Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate - cum - VI AJCJ, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy

District. The petitioner herein is sole accused in the said case. The

offence alleged against him is under Section - 306 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

      2. Respondent No.1 - de facto complainant has filed I.A. No.3

of 2021 to permit her to compromise with the accused. Similarly, she

filed I.A.No.4 of 2021 to record compromise and quash the

proceedings against the petitioner - sole accused in the aforesaid

P.R.C. in terms of compromise.

3. In support of the aforesaid I.As., the de facto complainant

has filed her affidavit as well as joint memo signed by herself,

accused and their counsel, wherein it is mentioned that the matter has

been settled amicably between them.

4. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 03.02.2021, after

recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as respondent No.1, directed the parties to appear KL,J Crl.P. No.359 of 2021

before the Registrar (Judicial - I) of this Court by 12.02.2021 with

reference to their identification. Similarly, this Court directed the

Registrar (Judicial - I) to submit his report. Pursuant to the said order,

the Registrar (Judicial - I) has submitted his report dated 10.02.2021.

5. In the report, the Registrar (Judicial-I) of this Court has

stated as follows:

".......

On oral examination, respondent No.1 has stated that she had filed a complaint against the petitioner and that the same has been registered as P.R.C. No.219 of 2020 on the file of the VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate - cum - VI AJCJ at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C., and that now she has approached the Hon'ble High Court for recording the compromise.

Considering the same, the identification of the parties in the Criminal Petition is established."

6. The joint memo of compromise and report dated 10.02.201

are placed on record.

7. Heard Mr. K. Surender, learned counsel for the petitioner -

accused, and Mr. R. Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - de

facto complainant, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State, and perused the entire

material available on record.

KL,J Crl.P. No.359 of 2021

8. Mr. K. Surender, learned counsel for the petitioner, would

submit that respondent No.1 has lodged a complaint with Station

House Officer, Chaitanyapuri, Rachakonda Commissionerate on

02.06.2020. In the complaint dated 02.06.2020, it is alleged against

the petitioner herein that her husband used to work as Driver with

Googee Properties situated at Green Hills Colony, Kothapet. In

February, 2020, there was theft of money in the said office. The

proprietor of the said Googee Properties i.e., petitioner herein, started

suspecting the husband of respondent No.1 herein. With the said

suspicion, the petitioner started abusing the husband of respondent

No.1, and vexed with the said acts of the petitioner herein, her

husband consumed Acid on 21.02.2020. He was shifted to Ozone

Hospital, Kothapet. After 16 days, he was shifted to Naveena

Hospital, Hastinapuram and after 15 days, he was shifted to Care

Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, where he died on 02.06.2020 at

about 07:30 hours. Therefore, she has requested the police to take

action against the petitioner herein.

9. The Station House Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station has

registered a case in Crime No.349 of 2020 against the petitioner

herein for the aforesaid offence. After completion of investigation,

the police have filed charge sheet against the petitioner and the same

was taken on file vide P.R.C. No.219 of 2020. In the said charge

sheet also, the police have mentioned that they have recorded the

statements of respondent No.1 herein, LW.1 and LW.2, circumstantial KL,J Crl.P. No.359 of 2021

witnesses. Basing on the said statements, the police have filed the

charge sheet for the said offence.

10. Mr. K. Surender, learned counsel for the petitioner, would

submit that the alleged consumption of acid and attempting to commit

suicide was on 21.02.2020, whereas respondent No.1 has lodged the

complaint only on 02.06.2020. Thus, there is a delay of almost four

(04) months in lodging the complaint. By referring to the contents of

the complaint, he would submit that there is no allegation, much less

specific allegation against the petitioner herein that he has committed

abetment to commit suicide by the deceased. Except the word

'suspicion', nothing is mentioned against the petitioner herein. Even

in the charge sheet also, the police did not mention about the alleged

abetment committed by the petitioner herein.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit

that the Magistrate has recorded dying declaration on 21.02.2020,

wherein the deceased has stated that he has consumed acid due to

disputes he has with his wife and out of angry. He has further

deposed that nobody is responsible for the same. The learned counsel

for the petitioner has filed a copy of the said dying declaration. There

is no mention about the said dying declaration either in the complaint

or in the charge sheet. By referring to the same, the learned counsel

for the petitioner would submit that there is a delay in lodging the

complaint. There is no allegation of abetment of petitioner herein in

the charge sheet. There is no mention about dying declaration in the KL,J Crl.P. No.359 of 2021

charge sheet. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat1, the

learned counsel would submit that there should be specific allegation

with regard to the intention of accused to abet or instigate the

deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of same either in the

complaint or in the charge sheet, the proceedings for the offence under

Section 306 of IPC have to be quashed.

12. With the said contentions, the learned counsel seeks to

quash the proceedings in the aforesaid PRC.

13. It is relevant to note that as discussed above, during

pendency of the present petition, both the petitioner and respondent

No.1 have arrived at an amicable settlement. Respondent No.1 has

filed petitions I.A. Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 seeking to permit her to enter

into compromise and to record the compromise in terms thereof by

quashing the proceedings in the aforesaid PRC against the petitioner

herein.

14. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.As., respondent

No.1 has specifically stated that her husband has consumed toilet

cleaner on 21.02.2020 in Googee Properties office at Kothapet and

died on 02.06.2020. The dying declaration was recorded by the

Magistrate in the Hospital, wherein her husband has stated that due to

fight with her, he has consumed toilet cleaner. On the advise of elders

. 2010 LawSuit (SC) 550 KL,J Crl.P. No.359 of 2021

and also on the assumption that her husband's employer i.e., petitioner

herein, was responsible for the incident, she has filed the complaint

with the police. Since the incident of consuming toilet cleaner was

not taken place in the house, she cannot specifically give the reason as

to her husband consumed something. Now, she does not want to

prosecute the case against the petitioner herein. In view of the said

compromise and also by referring to the contents of complaint dated

02.06.2020 and the charge sheet, the learned counsel would submit

that the petitioner herein was falsely implicated in the present case.

There are no antecedents against the petitioner herein and he has not

involved in any case. Thus, it will fall under parameter No.5 of

paragraph No.13 of the decision of the Apex Court in State of

Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan2. He has also relied upon the

decision in Anand Prakash Pilania v. State of Uttar Pradesh3,

wherein the proceedings for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and

other offences were quashed on the ground of settlement between the

parties.

15. As discussed supra, admittedly, there is no specific

allegation against the petitioner herein with regard to the alleged

abetment committed by him in the complaint. There is no mention

about the said dying declaration either by the police or by respondent

No.1 herein. She has specifically mentioned that she cannot say the

. AIR 2019 SC 1296

. 2019 LawSuit (SC) 780 KL,J Crl.P. No.359 of 2021

reason for consuming toilet cleaner by her husband. However, she

has stated that she has settled the matter with the petitioner herein.

16. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in

Laxmi Narayan2, Anand Prakash Pilania3 and MadanMohan

Singh1 and considering the above discussion, it is a fit case to quash

the proceedings in P.R.C.No.219 of 2020 in exercise of powers of this

Court under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C.

17. Accordingly, I.A. Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 are allowed

permitting the parties to enter into compromise by recording the

compromise in terms thereof. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is

allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C. No.219 of 2020 on the file of

the VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate - cum - VI AJCJ, L.B.

Nagar, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed against the petitioner

- sole accused.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 22nd February, 2021 Mgr