Maddineni Prasad vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1522 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1522 Tel
Judgement Date : 16 April, 2024

Telangana High Court

Maddineni Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
        CRIMINAL PETITION No.5956 OF 2023
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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in

S.C.No.24 of 2021, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

of First Class, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District,

registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 read

with 34 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,

Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem

District, against the petitioners and other accused stating that

he is the Manager of Ramakrisha lodge, Bhadrachalam. On

17.12.2013 one G.N. Venkateswarulu came to the said lodge

and asked for single room. On the next day, the room boy rang

the door bell for cleaning the room but the said person did not

open the door. Then respondent No.2 saw through the hole of

the door and found that the said person was hanging with lungi

to the ceiling fan. Basing on the said complaint, the Police

registered a case in Crime No.334 of 2013 for the offence

SKS,J Crl.P.No.5956 OF 2023

punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC and after

completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the

learned Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Bhadrachalam.

3. Heard Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners 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 petitioners

submitted that initially the FIR was registered under Section

174 of Cr.P.C. Basing on the suicide note the Police registered a

case under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC. The suicide

note does not contain the names of the petitioners. The

allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague and there is

no evidence to prove that the petitioners 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 petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submitted that the alleged allegation shows that the petitioners

SKS,J Crl.P.No.5956 OF 2023

took money from the deceased and refused to register the land

on his name and demanded him to pay more money. But the

deceased could not bear the harassment and 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 attract. 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

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J Crl.P.No.5956 OF 2023

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."

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 petitioners/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.

SKS,J Crl.P.No.5956 OF 2023

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

petitioners and the deceased. The suicide note which was

written by the deceased is of four pages, wherein the names of