Ramelli Saikrishna vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 4162 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4162 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 June, 2025

Telangana High Court

Ramelli Saikrishna vs The State Of Telangana on 23 June, 2025

                                1



     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.3148 OF 2025

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners/accused in F.I.R.No.47 of

2025 dated 21.02.2025 on the file of the Station House Officer,

Mustabad Police Station, Rajanna Siricilla District registered for

the offence under Section 108 of BNS.

2. Heard Mr.T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.02.2025

respondent No.2/de facto complainant filed a complaint before

the concerned police stating the he along with his wife, Sunita

were running a Hotel business; that two and half years ago they

have purchased a new house in their village and to finance the

same had borrowed loans from M/s. Sriram Finance, Siricilla

Branch; that they have also borrowed an additional amount of

Rs.3,30,000/- from other villagers namely accused Nos.2 to 6;

that initially respondent No.2 repayed the loans in installments

but due to financial difficulties, he was unable to make monthly

payments, due to which, his wife Sunita was harassed by his

lenders; that unable to bear such harassment, on 21.02.2025,

his wife wrote a suicide note and ended her life by hanging

herself to death. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is

registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/s submits that

respondent No.2 obtained loan from M/s.Sriram Finance and

failed to repay the loan; that the employees of the Company had

asked for repayment of the loan and hence, the same cannot be

treated as abetment to suicide. He states that respondent No.2,

by taking undue advantage of the suicide committed by his wife,

filed false complaint against petitioners, who are the employees of

the Company. Therefore, relying on the decision passed by the

High Court of Gujarat in Jorubhai Amrubhai Varu Vs. State of

Gujarat 1, he seeks to quash the impugned proceedings.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the

matter requires to be tried and seeks to dismiss this Criminal

Petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 108 of BNS is

extracted as under:-

2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1189

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.

7. For better understanding the relevant portion of the decision cited (supra 1) is extracted as hereunder:-

10. In the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in R/CR.MA/9538/2020 ORDER AIR 2011 SC 1238 in case of M. Mohan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Hon'ble Apex Court having referred to the earlier judgment, has made the observations regarding the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, referring to the word 'suicide', which can be read as follow.

"If the provisions for the offence under Section 306 are considered, it is evident that the basic ingredient regarding the intentional instigation are required to be proved or established. The word 'suicide' has not been defined. The word 'suicide' would mean the intentional killing of oneself. As per Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Edition, p.686, "A finding of suicide must be on evidence of intention. Every act of self destruction is, in common language described by the word 'suicide' provided it is an intentional act of a party knowing the probable consequence of what he is about. Suicide is never to be presumed. Intention is the essential legal ingredient." [emphasis supplied] Therefore, while considering this aspect, the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 regarding the abetment and the suicide has to be considered. In other words, there has to be necessary evidence by which it could be said that the respondent accused had instigated the deceased in such a manner or by creating the circumstances, which has led the deceased to commit suicide.

In the reported Case (2010) 1 SCC 750 -Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra V. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words 'instigation' and 'goading'. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's R/CR.MA/9538/2020 ORDER suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of selfesteem and self respect. Therefore, it is

impossible to lay down nay straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances."

8. Admittedly, the allegation in the F.I.R. is that respondent

No.2 borrowed money from the Finance Company and failed to

repay the amount along with interest. Therefore, the lenders were

constantly demanding the money and alleged to have threatened

the respondent No.2 and his wife. Such act of demanding the

repayment of money would not bring case within the meaning of

Section 108 of BNS. There would not be any mens rea of the

lenders as the lenders would not benefitted from the act of

suicide of the deceased and thus, prima facie the allegation in

the F.I.R., taken at its face value does not constitute any offence

or make out a case against the petitioner/s. Hence, to secure the

ends of justice, the impugned proceedings in F.I.R.No.47 of 2025