Gaddhe Chandra Shekar vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 6758 Tel

Telangana High Court

Gaddhe Chandra Shekar vs The State Of Telangana on 26 November, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.12654 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 768 of 2023 on the

file of the Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District (presently

Jangaon District), wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as

accused No. 4 for the offences punishable under Section 306 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

referred to as "IPC").

2. Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for Sri Jalli Narendar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri

M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for respondent No.1 and

Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.11.2023,

the police at Jangoan received a complaint from the respondent

No.2 regarding a dispute with his agnates, including accused No.1

and others, over agricultural land. On 25.11.2023, both parties and

their representatives met at the agricultural fields to resolve the

dispute. The petitioner, representing the opponents, allegedly

scolded the respondent No.2 and his family. During the meeting,

the deceased (younger son of respondent No.2) demanded fair

resolution, to which the petitioner allegedly replied that not even an

inch of land would be given. Feeling hurt, the deceased later went

to Cheetakoduru Dam and consumed pesticide. Despite being

shifted to hospitals in Jangoan and Warangal, he succumbed to the

injuries. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint

against his agnates, including the petitioner. Basing on the same,

the present complaint has been filed.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely

implicated in the present crime solely on the ground that he acted

as a mediator between the defacto complainant and accused Nos. 1

to 3 in resolving property disputes relating to agricultural land. The

petitioner never instigated the deceased to commit suicide, nor is

there any act of abetment attributable to him.

5. He further submitted that the defacto complainant implicated

the petitioner as an accused only to resolve the civil disputes

pending between him and accused Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 2

has made omnibus allegations against the petitioner, which do not

attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC.

Hence, continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner is clear

abuse of process of law.

6. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relied

upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ayyub and others v. State of UP 1 and M.Mohan v. State2.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently

contended that the petitioner abused the deceased, and at the

instance of the petitioner and other accused, the deceased

committed suicide. There are specific allegations levelled against

the petitioner which attract the ingredients of the offence under

Section 306 IPC. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence

or not is a matter to be determined during the course of

investigation, and the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of

the proceedings at the stage of the crime. Therefore, the criminal

petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the

submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on

(2025) 3 SCC 334

(2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 626

record, it is reveals that there are property disputes between

accused Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 2. The petitioner, who is an

ex-MPTC member, acted as a mediator/elder between the two

parties. The only allegations levelled against the petitioner are that

he abused the deceased and allegedly stated that he would not allot

even a cent of land in favour of the deceased. The major allegations

are levelled against accused Nos. 1 to 3.

10. It is relevant to extract Section 107 of IPC and Section 306

of IPC, which reads as follows:

"107. Abetment of a thing.-- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- (First)-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly)-- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly)-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."

"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."

11. In Ayyub supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the

proceedings under Section 306 IPC, holding that the allegations did

not satisfy the statutory requirements of abetment of suicide under

Sections 306 and 107 IPC. In Mahendra Awase v. State of

Madhya Pradesh3, the Supreme Court had earlier clarified that

casual utterances, expressions of anger, ordinary domestic discord,

or general harassment, without the requisite mens rea or proximate

incitement, do not amount to instigation to commit suicide.

Reinforcing these principles, the Court in Ayyub relied on Madan

Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat 4, Amalendu Pal v. State of West

Bengal5, and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh6, to

reiterate that the alleged conduct must be so compelling as to leave

the victim with no other option but to end their life, and that there

must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement. In M. Mohan

supra in particular, the Hon'ble Supreme Court underscored that

abetment requires a definite mental process of instigation or

intentional aid, and that in the absence of any positive act on the

part of the accused to provoke or facilitate the suicide, conviction

under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained; upon evaluating the

record, the Court found that the appellants were not even remotely

connected with the offence. In view of certain deficiencies and the

absence of the essential ingredients of abetment, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court quashed the proceedings as an abuse of process and

(2025) 4 SCC 801

(2010) 8 SCC 628

(2010) 1 SCC 707

(2001) 9 SCC 618

directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team headed by

a DIG for a fresh and comprehensive reinvestigation into the

unnatural death of the deceased.

12. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. 7 , the husband, his

mother, and sister-in-law of the deceased Khemabai were

convicted under Section 306 IPC based mainly on her dying

declaration alleging harassment, beatings, and threats of a second

marriage. The Supreme Court held that mere allegations of

harassment, without proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional

aiding as required under Section 107 IPC, did not constitute

abetment of suicide. The Court found the conviction under Section

306 unsustainable. Though Section 498-A IPC (introduced in

1983) could have applied, the Court declined to substitute the

charge after such a long lapse of time. Since the husband and

mother-in-law had already served their sentences, their appeals

were treated as infructuous, while the sister-in-law was acquitted.

13. In Chakali Lakshmi Devi and others v State of Andhra

Pradesh 8 and another, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dealt with a

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of

proceedings in Crime No.72 of 2019, registered under Section 306

1995 Supp (3) SCC 731

2024(3)ALD(Crl.)730(AP)

r/w 34 IPC against the petitioners, who are the in-laws of the

deceased. The complaint alleged that following a quarrel, Accused

No.1 (mother-in-law) lodged a police complaint, after which the

complainant's son consumed pesticide and died. The Court held

that merely approaching the police for redressal cannot be

construed as "abetment" under Section 107 IPC, as there was no

instigation, conspiracy, or aiding in the suicide. Referring to

Bhajanlal's case and other precedents, the Court observed that the

FIR did not disclose the ingredients of the offence under Section

306 IPC. Accordingly, it quashed the proceedings against the

petitioners, allowing the criminal petition.

14. In the case on hand, the sole allegation against the petitioner

is that he abused the deceased and stated that he would not assign

even a single cent of land in his favor. Even if this allegation is

taken at its face value, it does not satisfy the ingredients of

instigation or intentional aid as required under Sections 306 and

107 IPC. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in the above-mentioned judgments, mere

quarrels, expressions of anger, denial of a civil claim, or harsh

words spoken in the context of disputes do not constitute abetment

of suicide unless they are shown to have been intended to provoke,

incite, or compel the deceased to take his life. There is no material

in the present case to indicate any positive act of instigation, any

mens rea on the part of the petitioner, or any conduct so

compelling as to leave the deceased with no alternative except to

commit suicide. Thus, applying the principles laid down in the

above decisions, the allegations against the petitioner do not make

out an offence under Section 306 IPC.

15. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned supra, this Court is of the

considered view that continuation of the proceedings for the

offence under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner is a clear

abuse of process of law and it is a fit case to invoke the provisions

of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the

petitioner.

16. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The

proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No. 768 of 2023 on the

file of the Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District (presently

Jangaon District), are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of

the observations made in this order are only confined for the

purpose of deciding this case.