Sangepu Sagar vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1415 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1415 Tel
Judgement Date : 4 April, 2024

Telangana High Court

Sangepu Sagar vs The State Of Telangana on 4 April, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
          CRIMINAL PETITION No.2331 OF 2022
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

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

the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S.C.No.82 of

2022, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate

of First Class, Jagtial, registered for the offence punishable

under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the

IPC').

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto

complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Jagtial Rural

Police Station, Jagtial District, against the petitioner stating that

his grandson was staying in Dubai. One year ago prior to filing

of the complaint, his grandson has taken loan for an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from the petitioner. Later, he came to know that

the petitioner is harassing his grandson to pay the said loan

amount. Five months ago, his grandson came from Dubai and

informed the same to him. One week ago, the petitioner made a

call and asked his grandson to pay the loan amount.

Thereafter, the petitioner came to his house and harassed his

grandson. Due to unbearable harassment of the petitioner, his

SKS,J Crl.P.No.2331 OF 2022

grandson fell sad and committed suicide by consuming

insecticide Poison. Basing on the said complaint, the Police

registered a case in Crime No.457 of 2020 for the offence

punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and after completion of

investigation, they filed charge sheet before the I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Jagtial.

3. Heard Sri D. Shashi Preetham, learned counsel

representing Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent

No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none

appeared on his behalf.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are

vague and there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner

harassed the deceased due to which committed suicide.

Learned counsel further submitted that without proper

investigation, police filed charge-sheet. Therefore, prayed the

Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submitted that the alleged allegation shows that the petitioner

SKS,J Crl.P.No.2331 OF 2022

harassed the deceased, due to which, the deceased committed

suicide. Whether the harassment amounts to instigation

requires trial. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the

offence under Section 306 of IPC does not constitute. Hence,

prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the

learned counsel and having gone through the material available

on record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the

complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as

alleged by the Police.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as

follows:

"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J Crl.P.No.2331 OF 2022

facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."

8. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:

"306. Abetment of suicide:- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

9. To prove the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the

prosecution has to prove that the deceased committed suicide

due to the abetment of the petitioner/accused. Section 107 of

IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a

thing, if he, firstly, instigates any person to do that thing;

secondly, engages with one or more other persons in any

conspiracy for the doing of that thing; thirdly, by an act or

illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

10. In the present case, there were disputes between the

petitioner/accused and the deceased. The complaint and

statement of the witnesses reveal that when the deceased

returned from Dubai the petitioner called him and harassed him