IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8981 OF 2009 Between: Smt. Seetha Dayakar Reddy, W/o. K. Dayakar Reddy ……Petitioner – accused No.1 AND Smt. Bogam Anjanlamma & another .....Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8981 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner Smt. Seetha Dayakar Reddy, accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings against her in Crime No.93 of 2009 of Marrikhal Police Station, Mahabubnagar District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506 and 189 IPC. 2. The petitioner is a member of A.P. Legislative Assembly. The case of the prosecution is that she and two other public representatives Pratap Goud, Z.P.T.C., and Bharati Reddy, M.P.P., pressurized the deceased Rajeshwari, an Agricultural Officer, for allotting sprinklers supplied by the Government at subsidized rates, to the members of their respective groups. On account of that pressure and consequent humiliation, the deceased committed suicide by setting fire to herself. 3. The case of the prosecution rests mainly on the dying declarations recorded by Magistrates, one on 15-09-2009 and the second one on 17-10-2009. 4. The allegation of the prosecution is that after 15-10-2009 i.e. after recording the first dying declaration of the deceased, petitioner, visited the deceased at the hospital and thereafter her second dying declaration was recorded on 17-10-2009, as such, there is some change in the second dying declaration, where the role played by the petitioner is completely diluted. 5. The material portion of the first dying declaration of the deceased dated 15-10-2009, when translated into English, is as follows: The deceased is working as Agricultural Officer at Devarakadara in Mahabubnagar District. Sprinklers are supplied on subsidy basis. Farmers would be giving applications and the office of the deceased has to finalize the allotment. Local leaders, MPP Bharati Reddy, ZPTC Pratap Goud, MLA Sita Dayakar Reddy, pressurized her. They wanted sprinklers to be given to farmers of their group. A.P.M.I.P. (Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project) supplies sprinklers in two phases. In one phase, 35 sprinklers were received. Farmers would give applications and the officers have to select small and marginal farmers and forward the list to the in-charge of A.P.M.I.P. who would sort out and finalize the list and allot the sprinklers and ultimately sprinklers would be supplied to the formers listed out. The political party people referred above pressurized her over telephone by sending their persons. The above referred politicians have called her to their offices and pressurized her to supply sprinklers to their people. They have also threatened and pressurized her that compulsorily sprinklers have to be given to their people only, that on account of that pressure, she committed suicide by setting fire to herself. 6. As the second dying declaration is alleged to have been recorded after the petitioner visiting the deceased in the hospital, at this stage, I am not giving any importance to the same, where the allegations against the petitioner are diluted. 7. Thus, on the basis of the first dying declaration dated 15-10-2009, it has to be seen as to whether there is prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the statement of an eyewitness K. Narayan Reddy, AEO, reveals that the deceased was humiliated and the learned Public Prosecutor took me through the statement of this witness; there is nothing to show that the deceased was humiliated. 9. Thus, as seen form the first dying declaration, 35 sprinklers were received and the deceased has to sort out the applications of small and marginal farmers to supply sprinklers to them on subsidy and send the list to the APMIP, which on the basis of the applications forwarded, finally allots the sprinklers. Thus, it appears that the selection made by the deceased would not be final and the finalization would be only by the APMIP. At this stage, we will even assume that the list forwarded by the deceased itself would be formally approved by the APMIP. 11. The complaint of the deceased is that the above referred three public representatives have pressurized her by telephoning and sending their men to her asking allotment of sprinklers and that they even called her to their respective offices and pressurized her to allot sprinklers to the persons of their choice. They also asked her that compulsorily sprinklers have to be allotted to the farmers of their group. Here the words used in Telugu are “………valla valla party vallaku ivvali lekapote baa undadu ani otthidi chesaru bedirincharu. Aa otthidi barinchaleka nenu na meeda kerosene posukuni manta antinchukunnanu………” 12. Thus, the deceased stated that she was even threatened, but ultimately she committed suicide on account of unbearable pressure. 13. Thus, the dying declaration would nowhere shows that the deceased was humiliated. The biggest word used is only threatening – “bedirincharu.” 14. Merely because there was pressure by the public representatives to allot sprinklers to their respective group members that may not amount to abetment to commit suicide. Naturally when only limited number of articles are supplied, different groups would request for supplying to the persons of their choice and in that process, obviously, some pressure would be used. It is not the case of the deceased that any un-parliamentary language was used against her or she was abused in any other way. 15. In such circumstances, it cannot be, prima facie, held that there is any abetment to commit suicide to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 16. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner has moved an application for anticipatory bail and the same is pending in this Court, as such, the present proceedings are parallel, therefore it is not appropriate to pass orders in this application. This contention cannot be accepted as anticipatory bail and quash petitions are independent proceedings and independent orders can be passed in both the petitions, as in case, it is held by this Court that there is no prima facie material to quash the proceedings and the same is dismissed also, the petition for anticipatory bail can be entertained. Further, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, even if stay of arrest is granted in this petition till filing of charge sheet, petitioner can maintain anticipatory bail application. 17. In the circumstances, it is a case where arrest of the petitioner can be stayed. 18. Hence, it is directed that investigation and consequential steps on the basis of result of the investigation shall go on, but the petitioner shall not be arrested till filing of charge sheet, if any. 19. The investigating agency or the Courts below shall not take into consideration the observations of this Court in this order at any stage of the case and shall proceed independently. 20. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 3, 2009. NOTE: Dispatch the order by today itself. (B/O) PV