A.Thirupathi Varma vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6243 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.10470 OF 2022
ORDER:

1. Petitioner/A5 is questioning the pendency of criminal

proceedings in PRC No.23 of 2017 on the file of the XVII

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

registered for the offences under Sections 498-A & 306 of

IPC and consequently, sought to quash the same.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that a married

women by name Gaddam Saraswathi died by hanging

herself on 30.10.2010. As per the case of the prosecution,

A1 to A5 are responsible for the said act by abetting her to

commit suicide, which is punishable under Section 306 IPC

and they are also liable for punishment under Section 498-A

IPC. All the accused were charge sheeted.

3. The facts of the case as could be gathered through the

complaint as well as the contents of the charge sheet are

that the deceased Gaddam Saraswathi was given in

marriage to A1 and the said marriage is outcome of a rape

case that is pending against A1 wherein the deceased

Saraswathi is the defacto complainant. After marriage, A1

being the husband and A2 being the mother-in-law and A3

being the sister-in-law harassed the deceased Saraswati for

the sake of dowry. One month after the marriage, A1 left to

America and subsequently the deceased Saraswathi was

necked out of the house by A2 and A3. A5 being the

advocate helped and instigated A1 to A3 during course of

harassment. Vexed with her life, Saraswathi committed

suicide by hanging herself by leaving a suicide note on

30.10.2010. These facts formed basis for the Police to

investigate into and laid charge sheet.

4. The trial Court, having examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 9

and marking Exs.P1 to P10 found that A1 to A3 who faced

trial were not guilty of the offences and acquitted them. A4

and the present petitioner/A5 did not face trial and were

shown as absconding.

5. This Court, by order 17.02.2022 quashed the

proceedings against A4 subsequent to the judgment of the

Sessions Court. Present petitioner/A5 also stands on the

same footing as that of A4, who was also a professional

advocate.

6. In this case, as per the version of the prosecution, the

petitioner-A5 instigated A1 to A3 in harassing the deceased

Saraswathi by giving wrong advises thereby extending

support. Admittedly, under the Advocates Act, 1961

protecting the interest of the client is the prime duty of an

advocate. In doing so, if the advocate gives advise regarding

the ways by which the client could come out from the

clutches of law, that does not mean that he has instigated,

and abetted to do an illegal act.

7. A perusal of the contents of the charge sheet, the

complaint given by the de facto complaint and more

particularly the suicide note that is alleged to have been

written by the deceased Saraswathi goes to show that the

allegation made is only that the petitioner being an advocate

was giving wrong advises to A1 to A3 and taking support of

the said advocate, they were acting against the interest of

the deceased Saraswathi and thereby subjected her to

hardship. That does not mean that the petitioner being an

advocate, instigated/abetted the deceased to commit

suicide. Thus the ultimate conclusion is that the

petitioner/A5 does not fall either within the purview of

Section 498-A IPC or Section 306 IPC, which according to

the version of the prosecution, were committed by the

petitioner/A5 herein. Therefore, continuation of proceedings

against the petitioner/A5 would only amount to abuse of

process of law.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and all

further proceedings against the petitioner-A5 in PRC No.23

of 2017 on the file of the Court of the XVII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.11.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.10470 OF 2022

Date: 29.11.2022.

kvs