HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7309 AND 5955 OF 2007 Between: G.Venkateswara Reddy and another … Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5955 AND 7309 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: - These two criminal petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No.329 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) and 306 IPC, initiated against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 4 in the said S.C., where the petitioner/A4 in Crl.P.No.5955 of 2007 was charged for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC, whereas petitioners/A2 and A3 in Crl.P.No.7309 of 2007 were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The facts which give rise to filing of the charge sheet are that one Sunitha, wife of A1-V.Venkateswara Reddy, who was staying along with her husband in a house bearing No.EWS 890, II Phase, KPHB Colony, committed suicide by hanging to ceiling fan. On lodging a report with the police by the house owner – P.Veerabhadra Rao, a case in crime No.119 of 2006 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered. During the course of investigation, L.W.17 the Inspector of Police, Kukatpally visited the scene of offence and searched for any note left by the deceased, but he could not find anything. As the death of the deceased took within seven years from the date of marriage, L.W.17 sent a requisition to the M.R.O. to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The 2nd respondent, who is the father of the deceased, submitted a letter enclosing a suicide note said to have been written by his daughter, stating that the death of his daughter is not a suicidal death and it is a murder. Later the police investigated into the case and laid the charge sheet stating that A2 and A3, who are the relatives of the deceased, used to visit the house of the deceased frequently and used to harass her mentally and physically. A4, who is a neighbour, frequently used to quarrel with the deceased at water tap and at sweeping near their house. While so, on 04.02.2006 A1 beat the deceased over a petty issue. Due to constant harassments of A1 to A4, she vexed with her life and committed suicide and accordingly, A1 to A3 were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and A4 was charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, which was taken on file in S.C.No.329 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, which is now sought to be quashed against the petitioners/ A4, A2 and A3. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the only allegation against A4 is that she used to quarrel with the deceased frequently at water tank and at sweeping near their house and she has not facilitated the deceased in commission of suicide, to charge her for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC. The allegation against A2 and A3, who are said to be the relatives of the deceased, is that they used to visit her house frequently and harass her mentally and physically. Since they are not the relatives of A1, husband of the deceased, the provisions of Section 498A are not attracted and that as they have not assisted or instigated the deceased for commission of suicide, the charge under Section 306 IPC is not maintainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent father of the deceased, filed a counter stating that the police searched the house at the time of conducting panchanama and shifted the dead body of the deceased to remedy hospital. In the meanwhile his son-in-law A1 created a suicide note against A2 and his sister A3, who are the distant relatives of the deceased, and that they caused the death of his daughter and also created a story that prior to the death of his daughter there is a quarrel between his daughter and one Anitha-A4 while collecting the water from the Tap. In fact this is not a cause for the death of her daughter, but her son-in-law created false suicide note with an intention to escape from the crime. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that A4 did not instigate or assist the deceased in commission of suicide, but A2 and A3, who are the distant relatives of the deceased, are said to have harassed the deceased, for which she committed suicide. They can be proceeded under Section 498A IPC and the proceedings cannot be quashed against A2 and A3. The Supreme Court in Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal[1] had an occasion to consider the suicide note to implicate the persons mentioned in the suicide note as accused, wherein it was held that in the absence of any willful act or incidence or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide and in the absence of any contents in the suicide note to make out offence against the accused which ultimately instigated or resulted in the committal of suicide by the accused, registration of a crime only on the basis of the suicide note without any factual foundation and the prosecution initiated against the accused are liable to be quashed. Following the same, this Court quashed the prosecution initiated on the basis of suicidal note in T.Brahmanandam v. State of A.P.[2]. In Kailashi Bai v. Aarti Arya and another[3] as the suicide note of the husband disclosed that the accused-wife used to harass the deceased and subjected him to mental cruelty as she belonged to higher caste and she did not like association of deceased with his parents and relatives, the High Court quashed the proceedings initiated on that basis as the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. were not established. On further appeal, the Supreme Court while envisaging three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, held as a whole and on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement and considering the complaint allegations do not constitute the offence, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings, and accordingly upheld the decision of the High Court in quashing the complaint. This Court in V. Shankaraiah v. State of A.P.[4] held that the suicide is not an offence obviously because the person that committed suicide is not available to undergo the trial and punishment, but abetment of suicide and its attempt, are made offences under Sections 306 and 309 I.P.C. respectively. Since there was no averment in the charge sheet or material on record to show that the petitioner- accused either induced the deceased to commit suicide or aided the suicide of the deceased, the accused was held not liable to be charge- sheeted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and this Court accordingly quashed the proceedings. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Alka Grewal v. State of M.P.[5], had an occasion to consider the suicide note written by the husband who committed suicide. In the said note, he stated under what circumstances he committed suicide. It was stated therein that the accused was behaving in immoral manner having sexual connections with Dhanraj and on objection by the husband, her mother was creating a scene and declaring that this was the free-will of the girl and he was nobody to object. All this had pained him and in order to avoid all these unfortunate circumstances he ended his life. Considering the said allegations, it was observed that the husband was depressed and took such a decision, but how much he was so depressed by the immoral character of the wife, is different from person to person, and that in the absence of any other material, the suicide note and the letter written by the deceased are insufficient to infer that the wife abetted suicide. She may be cause for the suicide, but not the abettor and holding so, quashed the proceedings. The only allegation against A4 is that she used to quarrel with the deceased frequently at water tap and at sweeping near their house, but it is no where alleged that A4 prior to or at the time of commission of suicide, did anything in order to facilitate the deceased for commission of suicide. Further there is no material on record on the basis on which any criminal court can reasonably come to the conclusion that A4 is in any manner connected with the incident leading to the suicide. Therefore, she cannot be charged for the offence under section 306 IPC. Hence, the initiation of the proceedings against A4 for the offence under Section 306 IPC, if allowed to continue is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Since the framing of a charge substantially affects the liberty of the concerned person, it is the duty of the Court to consider judicially as to whether the material warrants the framing of such charge. Once the court comes to the conclusion that the suicide note as such cannot be a sufficient material to be proceeded against the accused, the continuation of the proceedings will result in harassment and the same can be quashed against her. Except alleging that A2 and A3, who are the relatives of the deceased, used to visit the house of the deceased frequently and used to harass her mentally and physically, the particulars of harassment have not been mentioned. Unless the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the frequent harassment, if any, that has taken place just prior to committing of suicide, the same cannot be taken as an incriminating evidence against the accused to implicate them for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The case strictly falls under illustrations (1), (3), and (5) enumerated by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[6] and continuing the proceedings will result in harassment of the petitioners. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be continued and they are accordingly quashed. The criminal petitions are accordingly allowed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 26th August 2010 lmv [1] 2005(5) SCJ 813 [2] 2009 (1) ALT (Cri) 141 [3] 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 714 (SC) [4] 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 470 (A.P.) [5] 2000 CRI.L.J. 672 [6] AIR 1992 SC 604