THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.13131 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A3 and A4 are accused of oﬀence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. The case is pending investigation. FIR given by wife of the deceased who died by committing suicide by hanging after leaving suicide note, is to the eﬀect that A1 to A4 harassed the deceased mentally and as the deceased could not bear with insults of the accused, he committed suicide. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that this FIR is given as counter blast for the complaint ﬁled by A1 before the Magistrate at Bhongir, alleging oﬀences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C., which complaint was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is further contended in the death note/suicide note said to have been left by the deceased, name of A1 alone was mentioned and not that of the petitioners. The petitioners 1 and 2 are ladies, A3 being daughter and A4 being wife of A1. A3 is stated to be studying MBA course at Hyderabad. In FIR, it is speciﬁcally alleged that A1 to A4 were harassing the deceased mentally and insulting him and therefore, the deceased committed suicide. 2. Placing reliance on MADAN MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [1] of the supreme Court, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that to bring the case under Section 306 I.P.C., speciﬁc abetment as contemplated by Section 107 I.P.C. on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person, as a result of that abetment, is required and that intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary for the oﬀence under Section 306 I.P.C. It was a case where the accused who was a superior oﬃcer of the deceased who was working as driver under him, became angry and threatened the deceased with suspension and with creation of diﬃculties to him. In those circumstances, the driver of the accused committed suicide. The supreme Court held that the said allegations do not amount to any of the ingredients required under Section 107 I.P.C. to constitute abetment and consequently, no case under Section 306 I.P.C. was made out. 3. On reading of entire FIR, main thrust of allegations is against A1, though names of A1’s family members, including A3 and A4 were mentioned as the persons who were insulting the deceased. Women folk could not have intended that the deceased should commit suicide. The deceased is no other than brother of A1. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant/wife of the deceased included all family members of A1 with an intention to see that some settlement is arrived at between the families in their disputes, as contended by the petitioners’ counsel. Therefore, I further hold that continuation of the case against A3 and A4 would be abuse of process of criminal law. 4. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing FIR in Crime No.58 of 2010 of Athmakur (M) Police Station of Nalgonda District, insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2/A3 and A4 are concerned. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:08.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.13131 of 2010 Dt:08.12.2011 ysk [1] (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 628