1 APHC010148342021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2333/2021 Between: 1. EMANI VENKATA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. ANKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.BHEEMAVARIPALEM, 16TH WARD, BAPATLA TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. KAKI RAMESH,, S/O. SHANKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. SRUNGAPURAM, 16TH WARD, BAPATLA TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. STATE BY, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2. K SRINIVAS RAO, S/O. SHANKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC SERVICE, R/O. SRUNGAPURAM, BAPATLA TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. O M R LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. RAMESH BABU TALLURI The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in P.R.C.No.9 of 2021 on the file of 1 in short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. 2. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 / State. None appeared for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners to attract the alleged offence against them. Learned counsel would further submit that there are property disputes between the deceased and the Petitioners and in that view, the Petitioners had issued a legal notice to the deceased. It is further submitted that there is no material to show that the Petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel would submit that, none of the witnesses have been examined during investigation to show that the Petitioners have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC do not attract against the Petitioners. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, at this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. 2 in short, ‘I.P.C.’ 3 5. To attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, there should be instigation or aiding the deceased to commit suicide. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M.Mohan v. Valmurugan & another3, held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature is clear that, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that she committed suicide. This Court in Chakali Lakshmi Devi v. State of A.P.,4 by analyzing the precedents on the same Section of law held as follows; “13. A bare reading of the decisions supra and the provisions would make it clear that to charge a person under Section 306, It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused played a role in the suicide. Such role must fall into either of the criteria mentioned in Section 107. In simple words, the accused must either encourage/instigate the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure that the individual commits suicide or act/fail to act, which directly results in the individual's suicide.” 6. In order to bring the Petitioners within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2 must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. In the case on hand, it is alleged that Respondent No.2 is the elder son, Petitioner/Accused No.1 is the son-in-law and Petitioner / Accused No.2 3 AIR 2011 SC 1238 4 2024 SCC OnLine AP 383 4 is the younger son of the deceased. After the demise of the wife of the deceased, he had been staying with Respondent No.2. The deceased during his life time had Ac.1.50 cents of land out of which, he offered Ac.1.00 cents of land to his daughter, who is the wife of Accused No.1 and the remaining Ac.0.50 cents of land to Respondent No.2. Petitioners used to pressurize to partition Ac.0.50 cents of land which was given to Respondent No.2. That being so, on 03.09.2020, Petitioner / Accused No.1 had sent a notice to the deceased stating that the deceased gave Ac.0.50 cents of land to him for lease about 33 years ago, due to which the deceased became mentally upset and that on 06.09.2020 in the early morning left the house and on the same day at 7.00 p.m., he was found dead. 7. There is nothing to suggest that Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 had an intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of any such allegation made in the complaint, as well as in the charge sheet filed by the Police, mere giving of legal notice to the deceased with regard to a property disputes, itself does not amount to the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. It is pertinent to note that, perusal of the complaint would reveal that there is no instigation or conspiracy between the Petitioners in the commission of the offence. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, there is no material or evidence to show that the Petitioners had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Unless, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature, it would be hazardous to keep the Petitioners under trial. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion 5 that, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners by exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2 in P.R.C.No.9 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 IPC. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 05.08.2025 Dinesh 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2333 of 2021 Dt.05.08.2025 Dinesh