Telangana High Court

T.Sandeep Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 12 June, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.1337 of 2024


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to

quash the proceedings against him in

PRC.No.78 of 2022 on the file of the XXII Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal, Cyberabad, for the

alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the

respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a

complaint against the petitioner stating that on

23.11.2021 at about 18:15 hours while he was with his

friends in Miyapur, his elder daughter by name

Thraiksha made a call to him and asked to make a video

call. Upon making a video call he noticed that his wife

was hanging to ceiling fan, as such, he immediately

made a call to his neighbor and asked him to verify the

SKS,J

same. The said person rushed to the house of respondent

NO.2 and informed him about the death of his wife. The

respondent NO.2 stated that a suicide note was

discovered wherein it was written that the Bagala

Sandeep (petitioner/accused No.1) and one Anila aunty

were harassing the deceased due to which she committed

suicide. It was written that the petitioner black mailed

the deceased stating that if she fails to give him

Rs.2,00,000/- he would inform her husband about their

illegal relation. In the said suicide note it was also

written that one unknown person looted lot of money

from the deceased in the name of loan approval from

Bajaj Finance.

3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police

investigated the matter and on completion of due

investigation a charge sheet was filed against the

petitioner/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under

Section 306 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal

Petition is filed.

SKS,J

4. Heard Sri RA Chary, learned counsel for

petitioner/accused No.1, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State

and Smt. Pingali Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

the alleged suicide note as per the record shows three

pages, whereas, the deceased concluded the said note in

second page itself. He specifically contended that the

keen observation of page three of suicide note would

reveal that the same was added intentionally. In addition

to that there is a lot of difference in the writing as well.

He lamented that the Police Officials have collected the

notebooks of the deceased and sent the same to forensic

department for the purpose of comparison of writing but

to compare writing or signature, they ought to have

collected and sent some recent document. He appraised

that as per the Truth Labs Forensic Services report dated

19.08.2023 there existed a variation of signature on sale

deed dated 07.09.2020 with that of the alleged suicide

note.

SKS,J

6. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended

that Section 306 of IPC does not attract in the present

case. He asserted that except the alleged suicide note, no

other material is placed on record to prove that the

petitioner has caused any harm to the deceased or is any

way responsible for the suicide committed by the

deceased or has instigated her in any manner. Therefore,

prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by

quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, and learned counsel appearing for

respondent NO.2/de facto complainant, respectively,

submitted that the contention that the page number

three of the said suicide note was intentionally added is

baseless and false. In support of the said submission, the

Assistant Public Prosecutor, specifically asserted that

sample notebooks containing the writings of deceased

were collected and sent for comparison with the suicide

note, whereunder, the LW.16 - Assistant Director,

Telangana State Forensic Laboratories, examined the

material objects and opined that the person who wrote

SKS,J

the red enclosed writings in note books, also wrote the

red enclosed writings in the suicide note. Therefore, while

submitting that the matter requires detailed full-fledged

trial, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and

learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectively, prayed

this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made

and on going through the material placed on record, it is

noted that the primary allegation leveled by the

respondent No.2 against the petitioner/accused No.1 is

that he has harassed the deceased to an extent that she

was forced to commit suicide. In support of the said

allegation, the suicide note, alleged to have been written

by the deceased is filed wherein, it was stated that the

deceased faced financial crunch and is suffering from

debt of Rs.8,00,000/- and the

builder by name Sandeep - petitioner/accused NO.1,

harassed her and black mailed her to give Rs.2,00,000/-,

failing in which he would spread the rumor that she had

illegal relation with him.

SKS,J

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

petitioner raises doubt with regard to the authenticity of

the said suicide note, contending that the same is forged

document as the page number three of the said suicide

note was added intentionally and the writing thereof,

does not match with the writing of the deceased.

10. At this stage, it is pertinent to extract the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh

Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another 1,

wherein in paragraph No.20 it is held as follows:

"20. The scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C is

well defined and inherent powers could be

exercised by the High Court to give effect to an

order under Cr.P.C; to prevent abuse of the

process of the Court; and to otherwise secure

the ends of justice. The extraordinary power is

to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in

exercise of such powers, it is not permissible

for the High Court to appreciate the evidence

as it can only evaluate material documents on

record to the extent of its prima facie

satisfaction about the existence of sufficient

(2013) 10 SCC 591

SKS,J

ground for proceedings against the accused

and the Court cannot look into materials, the

acceptability of which is essentially a matter for

trial. Any document filed along with the

petition labelled as evidence without being

tested and proved, cannot be examined. The

law does not prohibit entertaining the petition

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the

charge-sheet even before the charges are

framed or before the application of discharge is

filed or even during the pendency of such

application before the Court concerned. The

High Court cannot reject the application merely

on the ground that the accused can argue legal

and factual issues at the time of the framing of

the charge. However, the inherent power of the

Court should not be exercised to stifle the

legitimate prosecution but can be save the

accused from undergoing the agony of a

criminal trial."

11. That apart, it is also imperative to note that to

quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the

Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint

would prima facie show that the offence as alleged by the

Police constitutes.

SKS,J

12. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra

Kori 2, paragraph No.14 reads as under:

"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."

13. 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

(2012) 10 SCC 155

SKS,J

with imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to ten years, and shall

also be liable to fine."

14. 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/she, firstly, instigates any

person to do that thing; secondly, engages with one or more

other person(s) in any conspiracy for the doing of that

thing; thirdly, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of

that thing.

15. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is

noted that allegedly the petitioner/accused No.1 has

blackmailed and harassed the deceased and has demanded