THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11624 of 2010 Date: 14.06.2011 Between: A.Srinivas …..Petitioner And Kumari M.Sangeetha and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11624 of 2011 ORDER:- The point that arises for determination in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is whether there are grounds to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.235 of 2010 of Toopran Police Station, which has been registered for an offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. i.e., abetment of suicide. 2. The point arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner herein is one A.Srinivas and he is stated to be the Assistant Manager of Share Micro Finance Limited at Toopran in Medak District. The 1st respondent Kum.M.Sangeetha is the de facto complainant in this case. 3. A perusal of F.I.R. given by the 1st respondent would show that the deceased Smt.Kalavva is the mother of the de facto complainant. The F.I.R. reads that the deceased along with one Perumandla Kausalya, W/o. Yellaiah joined in a group of Share Micro Finance Limited at Toopran and they borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- in August, 2010 and another sum of Rs.12,000/- in September, 2010 from the said Share Micro Finance Limited. The F.I.R. further reads that on 8.11.2010 one tall person black in complexion who is the agent of above Share Micro Finance Limited came to their village and called upon all the borrowers including the deceased to repay the debts and said that he would again come on 14.11.2010 and 15.11.2010 and that all the borrowers including the deceased should repay their debts on those dates. It is then stated in the F.I.R. that thereafter the parents of the de facto complainant i.e., the deceased and her husband made efforts to secure the amount for repaying the debts, but could not raise the money. Then lastly, it is mentioned, that on 11.11.2010 the deceased dejected over her helplessness to raise the money for repaying the debts committed suicide in her house at Ghanapur Village in Toopran Mandal by hanging herself to the ceiling i.e., a log fixed in the ceiling. The de facto complainant with the above averments gave the F.I.R. and the Sub Inspector of Police, Toopran registered it as Crime No.235 of 2010 under Section 306 I.P.C. and took up investigation. 4. It may be noted that in the F.I.R. the de facto complainant did not name the petitioner as the accused, but she stated that a tall man black in complexion who was the agent of the Share Micro Finance Limited from which the deceased and the above mentioned other lady took the loans came and demanded the repayment of the loans. The petitioner says that he is the Assistant Manager of the Share Micro Finance Limited of Toopran which is mentioned in the report as the company from which the deceased took the loan. In the F.I.R., it should be noted, the description of the accused is given as “black and height (perhaps tall) person of Share Micro Finance Limited Agent”, but the name of the petitioner is not mentioned as accused. This, as will be presently seen, assumes importance. 5. It is no doubt true, as contended by Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the allegations in the F.I.R. read that the deceased committed suicide by hanging because of dejection or inability to repay the loan amounts apprehending that her popularity or prestige may be shattered in the society if action is taken against her by the Share Micro Finance Limited to recover the loan. The allegations in the F.I.R. do not show that the agent of the Share Micro Finance Limited abetted the suicide of the deceased as contemplated under Section 107 I.P.C. which defines what is abetment. Section 107 I.P.C. says that a person can be said to have abetted the doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing, secondly if he engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing which may amount to an offence and thirdly if that person intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission in doing of that thing. In the present case, the F.I.R. allegations do not show that the agent of the Finance Company either by his words or deeds drove the deceased to commit suicide. 6. In the above circumstances, the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are not attracted to the case, even if the allegations in the F.I.R. are believed to be true and this is a sufficient ground to quash the F.I.R. The question now is when the petitioner is not named as the accused in the case/F.I.R., whether this Court should quash the F.I.R. at his instance. The answer to this question, in my opinion, should be in the negative for the following reasons. 7. As already noted supra, the petitioner’s name not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the Public Prosecutor says that investigation is pending, but on the above allegations which do not show the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., what can be the outcome of investigation is not known. It is quite possible that the investigating officer having regard to the allegations in the F.I.R. may close the case also or may discover other evidence. What should be noted is, it is not the case of the prosecution that the police have already reached a conclusion that “tall man black in colour” mentioned in the F.I.R. is the petitioner himself and thus the petitioner’s apprehension cannot be said to be well founded. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is not shown as accused in the F.I.R., this Court should exercise restraint in exercising its jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. It may be noted that if this Court quashes an F.I.R. at the instance of a person who is not shown as accused in it, that would virtually result in interfering with police investigation which may proceed against another person who may be the culprit and this is not permissible under Law. The apprehension of the petitioner however appears to be since he happens to be the Assistant Manager of the above Finance Company, the police may proceed against him making him as accused in the case, but it is only an apprehension as the Public Prosecutor says that police have yet to take a decision in the matter and that they may close the case also. 8. At the time of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued the matter on the premise as if the petitioner’s name is shown as accused in the F.I.R. or that he is likely to be proceeded against by the police in the case. The effect of non- mention of the name of the petitioner as the accused has not been argued. This Court also heard the arguments of the petitioner’s Counsel on the premise that the petitioner’s name is found in the F.I.R., but it is noticed that his name is not found in it. A question will arise now whether the matter should be reopened for hearing on the above aspect. It may be noted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s name is not found in the F.I.R., no useful purpose would be served by reopening the matter and further hearing it as the same would not have any bearing on the merits and also the result of the matter. Hence, the matter has not been reopened. 9. In these circumstances, only for the reason that petitioner is not shown as accused in the case, I am of the opinion that this Court should not exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the F.I.R. notwithstanding the fact that the allegations in the F.I.R. do not show an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 10. Parting with the matter, the petitioner’s Counsel in the course of arguments expressed about the arrest of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case and having regard to the allegations in the F.I.R., the police are directed to take a decision about the arrest of the accused after the completion of investigation. It shall always be open for the petitioner to pursue his remedies under law in case, in the progress of investigation, the police show him as the accused in this case. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 14th June, 2011 TJMR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11624 of 2011 Date: 14.06.2011