1 APHC010602202022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8781/2022 Between: Goriparthy Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8781/2022 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No. 1, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in FIR No.281 of 2022 on the file of Station House Officer, Chintalapudi Police Station, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC. 2. Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri G.Yashwanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Notice which was sent to the respondent No.2, returned as refused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is A1, facing allegations for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel would further submit that A1 is a Branch Manager of DCCB Bank whereas he is not a member of the Society. It is alleged that Society has availed loans. Learned counsel would further submit that it is alleged that there is pressure to the deceased for recovery of loans in the Society. Learned counsel would further submit that A1 has nothing to do with the affairs of the Society. Learned counsel finally submits that absolutely there are no allegations against A1 that he has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Section 107 has no application to the facts of the present case. Such 3 being the case, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is a mere abuse of process of law. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the present petition is filed at the stage of FIR and because of the stay in this matter, the investigation is not in progress. There are specific allegations made against the petitioner. Let there be a directed to the Police to proceed with the investigation. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no dying declaration recorded in this matter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of their contention placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Nipun Aneja and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1, in Criminal Appeal No.654 of 2017 whereinit is held in para Nos. 21 and 22 as follows: “21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and 1 2024 INSC 767 4 wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations. 22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis of the occurrence. the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them. 5 6. Section 306 I.P.C makes abetment to commit suicide an offence, and Section 107 I.P.C., defines “abetment of thing”. The provisions read thus; “306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 6 7. This Court in Chakali Lakshmi Devi v. State of A.P.,2while quashing a Section 306 IPC case, had reiterated the settled position in the context of the offence as follows; “11. In Shabbir Hussain v. State of M.P. the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the ingredients essential for prosecution under Section 306 as follows; “4. In order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. ******** 6. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367].]” (emphasis supplied) 8. So far as the first clause in Section 107 is concerned, it is essential to refer to the decision rendered in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court expounded the various meanings of “instigation” as follows; 22024 SCC OnLine AP 383 7 “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation” (emphasis supplied) 9. 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.Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the contents of the complaint which was alleged by the wife of the deceased would reveal that the deceased suffered from pressure for collection loan amounts from the members of the Society. Be that as it may, there is no specific allegation against A1 that he abetted the deceased to commit suicide. No such allegation is there in the complaint. On 8 the face of it, even if the contents of the complaint are considered as gospel truth, no offence is made out against the petitioner since there may be several temperaments to the people and different minds of emotions to commit suicide. In absence of any material to show that he has abetted the deceased to commit suicide, no offence under Section 306 is made out. In the light of the discussion and observations referred supra, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The case against the petitioner/A1 in FIR No.281 of 2022 on the file of Station House Officer, Chintalapudi Police Station, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC is hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 28.01.2025 UPS 9 121 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.8781 of 2022 Dt.28.01.2025 UPS