* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY +Criminal Petition No.4713 of 2007 % 24-9-2010 # 1. S.K.Khaleel, S/o.S.K.Hyder, aged about 62 years, Occ:Brick Maker, R/o.H.No.19-1-24, Ashoknagar, Godavari Khani, Karimnagar District & Others. … Petitioners/Accused 1 to 6 Vs. $ State of Andhra Pradesh, Through S.H.O., P.S., Godavarikhani Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad … Respondent/State ! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.A.Bari, Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 99 (SC) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4713 OF 2007 DATE:24-09-2010 BETWEEN S.K.Khaleel & Others …Petitioners AND State of A.P., Through S.H.O., P.S., Godavarikhani, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4713 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.267 of 2005 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar District at Peddapally, wherein they were charged for the offences under Sections 306 read with 511 and 506 I.P.C. The statement of the complainant recorded by the Magistrate discloses that one Yashmeen Sultana, daughter of Goremiya fell in love with Ramesh, the elder brother of the complainant, and that they both got married before the Sub- Registrar, Peddapalli on 16.4.2004. On coming to know the marriage, the father of the girl, Goremiya got angry, hatched a plan to do away with the life of Ramesh, that in pursuance of his plan, he along with Natraj Muldhiyar and his servant Gorre Komuraiah of Kagaz Nagar, murdered Ramesh on 19.6.2004. On the complaint of Vamanachary, the father of the complainant, a case in Crime No.161 of 2004 was registered under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC on the file of I Town Police Station, Godavarikhani and after investigation, police laid the charge sheet. On filing the charge sheet, the petitioners herein, who are the relatives of Goremiya, threatened the complainant to withdraw the murder case otherwise they would kill him. Afraid of the frequent threats from the petitioners herein, he consumed some unknown poison on 12.7.2007 with an intention to commit suicide, that he was treated in the hospital and was discharged from the hospital on 16.11.2004. On the statement of the complainant so recorded, police registered a case in Crime No.182 of 2004 under Section 306 read with 511 IPC and Section 506 IPC and after due investigation, laid the charge sheet against the petitioners for the said offences. Sri M.A. Bari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since the complainant-second respondent herein who attempted to commit suicide was survived and was discharged from the hospital, the petitioners cannot be charged for an offence under Section 306 read with 511 IPC. Further, the offence under Section 506 is a non-cognizable offence and hence, the police cannot file a charge sheet for the said offence and that unless the person aggrieved makes a complaint, the petitioners cannot be proceeded for the charge under Section 506 IPC and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. The statement of the complainant as recorded by the Magistrate discloses that the petitioners herein threatened the complainant and his friends to withdraw the murder case against Goremiya, who is their relative, otherwise they would kill him, and afraid of the said threats exerted by the petitioners, the complainant consumed some unknown poison, but he survived after treatment. Sections 306 and 511 read thus: “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. 511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment:- Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may be extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.” The Apex Court in Satvir Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and another (2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 99 (SC)) held that it is a unique legal phenomenon in the Indian Penal Code that the only act, the attempt of which alone will become an offence. The person who attempted to commit suicide is guilty of the offence under Section 309 IPC whereas the person who committed suicide cannot be reached at all. Section 306 renders the person who abets the commission of suicide punishable for which the condition precedent is that suicide should necessarily have been committed. Further referring to Section 511, the Apex Court held that ‘the offence attempted should be one punishable by the Code with imprisonment. The conditions stipulated in the provision for completion of the said offence are: (1) The offender should have done some act towards commission of the main offence. (2) Such an attempt is not expressly covered as a penal provision elsewhere in the Code. Thus the “attempt” on the part of the accused is sine qua non for the offence under Section 511.’ Referring to the facts of the said case, the Apex Court, at para 12 held as under: 12. Thus, if the act of the accused asking Tejinder Pal Kaur (PW5) to go and commit suicide had driven her to proceed to the railway track for ending her life then it is expressly made punishable under Section 498-A IPC. When it is so expressly made punishable the act involved therein stands lifted out of the purview of Section 511 IPC. The very policy underlying in Section 511 seems to be providing it as a residuary provision. The corollary, therefore, is that the accused, in this case, cannot be convicted under Section 511 on account of the acts alleged against him. To attract punishment under Section 511 IPC, the act should amount to attempt and it was an attempt to commit an offence under the Code and the offence was punishable with imprisonment. The charge should mention both Section 511 and the principal Section. A person can be convicted for the offence under Section 511 when charged for a principal offence for his atempting to commit the offence. A person commits the offence of “attempt to commit a particular offence”, when (i) he intends to commit that particular offence, and (ii) he, having made preparations and with the intention to commit the offence, does an act towards its commission. In view of the allegation made in the statement of the complainant, the petitioners cannot be charged for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, Section 511 IPC will not attract in the circumstances of the case which is a residuary provision. Once the petitioners-accused cannot be proceeded for the offence under Section 306 r/w 511 IPC, they cannot also be proceeded for the charge under Section 506 IPC which is a non-cognizable offence on the basis of police report. Therefore, allowing the impugned proceedings to continue against the petitioners will result in abuse of process of law and unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed against the petitioners. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 Tsr.