Suresh Babu Kopparappu vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1449 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1449 Tel
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2024

Telangana High Court

Suresh Babu Kopparappu vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
          CRIMINAL PETITION No.3007 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.108 of

2022, on the file of the learned XIV Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Commissionerate,

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, Shamshabad

Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, against the

petitioner stating that the deceased was his son, working in E-

Com Express Company. On 21.12.2020, the deceased attended

his duty and after completion of his duty, he returned home and

thinking about something. At about 12:00 hrs the deceased

informed respondent No.2 that the petitioner, who is the

Supervisor/Manager of the company came to him and stated

that 12 mobile phones had been lost and he had stolen them

and also threatened him to hand over the said mobile phones to

the Police. Due to that he felt insult and consumed poison.

SKS,J Crl.P.No.3007 OF 2022

Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in

Crime No.596 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section

306 of the IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed

charge sheet before the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Commissionerate.

3. Heard Sri Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar, 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 deceased committed theft in the office and

he also admitted the same. The petitioner has given complaint

to the Police against the deceased about the theft. Later, the

petitioner came to know that the deceased committed suicide.

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has paid

an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- to the family of the deceased as

they lost their earning son and informed that he did not want to

continue the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague and

SKS,J Crl.P.No.3007 OF 2022

there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner harassed the

deceased due to which he 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.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submitted that the alleged allegation shows that the petitioner

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.

7. 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.

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

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

SKS,J Crl.P.No.3007 OF 2022

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 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."

9. 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."

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

prosecution has to prove that the deceased committed suicide

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J Crl.P.No.3007 OF 2022

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.

11. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner

are that he suspected the deceased stating that he committed