THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5071 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A3 and A4 are accused of offence punishable under Section 306/34 I.P.C., along with A1 and A2. A1 and A2 are parents of A3 and A4. A3 was studying B.Tech III year at Kurnnol. A4 is a widowed daughter-in-law who was living at Junepalli in her in-law’s house after death of her husband, along with her children. This is a case of suicide committed by the 2nd respondent’s son. After investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 only after deleting A3 and A4 from the case. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent filed protest petition before the Magistrate and after enquiry, the Magistrate took the case on file against A3 and A4 also. 2. The Investigating Officer deleted A3 and A4 from the case on the ground that A3 and A4 were never residing in the village and were only visiting their parents house occasionally and that on the day of incident, A3 and A4 were not in the village nor instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is the prosecution case that A1 and A2 harassed the deceased Thokala Maddileti, on land dispute having threatened him with dire consequences by saying that if the deceased did not leave the village, they would kill him and that the deceased became frightened and fed up with his life and committed suicide by consuming poison. It is pointed out that there is no death note left by the deceased and the eye witnesses (witness Nos.6 and 7) in the charge sheet did not reveal any cause for the suicide disclosed by the deceased at the time of consuming poisonous substance in the field. No doubt, presence of the accused on the date when the deceased committed suicide is not a condition precedent for mulcting them with liability under Section 306 I.P.C. At the same time, they must be present in the village and must have participated in abetting suicide along with A1 and A2 when there was exchange of words or threats between the accused and the deceased. The Magistrate did not give any finding to the effect that A3 and A4 were also present with A1 and A2 at the time of harassing of the accused and hurling threats towards the accused. The Magistrate while reversing conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer, should have over ruled all the reasons given by the Investigating Officer in deleting A3 and A4 from the case. The Magistrate in this case failed to do so. This Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate erred in allowing the protest petition filed by the 2nd respondent and taking cognizance of the offence against A3 and A4 also. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing order dated 28.08.2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Alampur, in C.F.R.No.21 of 2009. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:03.11.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5071 of 2010 Dt:03.11.2011 ysk