IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.3814 of 2008 Between: Ogireddi Chinni Krishna .. Petitioner AND Maradani Sambaiah and another .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.188 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent. No notice is being ordered for the 1st respondent, as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. S.C. No.188 of 2008 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru arose out of P.R.C. No.65 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru in pursuance of the charge-sheet filed by the police on investigation into Crime No.210 of 2006 of Eluru II Town Law and Order Police Station. The conclusions of the statutory investigating agency as disclosed by the contents of the charge-sheet are that the deceased Dhanalakshmi is the second wife of the 2nd accused, with whom the 1st accused developed an adulterous relationship. The relationship became known to the 2nd accused and the various details about the sequence of events specified in the charge-sheet are about the mental and physical harassment of the deceased Dhanalakshmi by both the 1st and 2nd accused, due to which ultimately Dhanalakshmi committed suicide by hanging herself. The investigating agency opined that the 2nd accused also abetted the suicide, though she discontinued the adulterous relationship with the 1st accused and was behaving as a dutiful wife, by harassing the deceased Dhanalakshmi frequently mentally and physically on the pretext of her destroying the family reputation in the eye of her kith and kin. The petitioner claims that he is innocent of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and it is only due to the acts of the 1st accused that the deceased committed suicide. The 2nd accused only requested the deceased and the 1st accused to give up the illicit relationship, as he is a respectable person in the society and even if the allegations are accepted at their face value, it cannot be said that the 2nd accused abetted the suicide by the deceased Dhanalakshmi. Attractive may be the pleas of the 2nd accused, but the prosecution had cited 35 witnesses as having to be examined during trial and the contents of the charge-sheet show that many of the witnesses may threw light on the marital relations between the 2nd accused and the deceased Dhanalakshmi. The circumstantial evidence sought to be produced may probably indicate as to whether the 2nd accused can be accused of one of the causes for the deceased being persuaded to commit suicide. Whether such conduct of the 2nd accused would amount to the 2nd accused abetting the suicide, is another question, which has to be gone into on merits by the trial Court. The factual intricacies of the relationship between the deceased and the 2nd accused are not open for any minute dissection in a summary proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and such issues of fact need to be left open to be gone into in depth by the trial Court. Similarly, any superficial indications from the contents of the charge-sheet as to the presence of all the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot lead to any conclusive termination of the criminal proceedings in such a summary enquiry. What facts are proved and what inferences have to be drawn from such proved facts are, thus, better left open to the trial Court and not to be considered in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, which has to be taken recourse to with extreme care, caution and circumspection. Therefore, the criminal petition does not appear sustainable and is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 25-08-2009 Svv