APHC010600242024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9745/2024 Between: 1. AYTHA VENKATA HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O. LATE VENKATA RATNAM, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O. 204, VENKATADRI RESIDENCY, RAMALINGA PURAM, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. AYTHA VIJAYA LAKSHMI,, W/O. VENKATA HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D. NO. 16-03-815, FLAT NO. 204, VENKATADRI RESIDENCY, RAMALINGA PURAM, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DARGAMITTA POLICE STATION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI 2. PATTAPU VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O. LATE JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, H.NO. 26-1-47, 4TH STREET, GAYATRI NAGAR, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the proceedings of Charge Sheet in S.C. SPL. No. 43 of 2024 against the Petitioners / Accused 2 and 3, on the file of the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge - Cum - Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs / STs. (POA) Act, Nellore, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners / accused 2 and 3 in S.C. SPL. No. 43 of 2024 against the Petitioners / Accused 2 and 3, on the file of the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge - Cum - Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs / STs. (POA) Act, Nellore, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. MARUPILLI SARADA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ORDER: 1. The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in S.C. SPL. No. 43 of 2024 against the Petitioners / Accused 2 and 3, on the file of the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge - Cum - Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs / STs. (POA) Act, Nellore. 2. Heard Sri M.Sai Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri K.Anup Koushik, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Ms. M.Sarada, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are the parents of Accused No. 1. It is contended that no specific allegations have been made against the petitioners so as to attract the offence under Section 306 of the IPC or the offences under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel further submits that Accused No. 1 and the deceased were in a love relationship for a considerable period, and when the deceased requested Accused No. 1 to marry her, he sought time to consult his parents and subsequently informed her that his parents did not agree to the marriage on the ground that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Learned counsel would contend that even if the entire allegations are accepted as gospel truth, no offence is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel finally submits that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to a mere abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioners, being the parents of Accused No. 1, refused to perform the marriage of Accused No. 1 with the deceased on the ground that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste, and therefore opposes the present Criminal Petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State would also submits that this Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. At this juncture, it is needful to refer Section 306 IPC which makes abetment to commit suicide an offence, and Section 107 I.P.C., defines “abetment of thing”. The provisions read thus; Section 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. Section 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. 7. This Court in Chakali Lakshmi Devi v. State of A.P.,1 while 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 1 2024 SCC OnLine AP 383 Kumar Chopra v.State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367].]” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In Prakash v. State of Maharashtra2, the Hon’ble Apex Court having considered various precedents held that to attract the offence that there should be clear mens rea on the part of the accused. The relevant portion is as follows; “15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Further explaining the test required for the purpose of identifying mens rea, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra,3 held as follows; 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725 “22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke the camel's back’; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim. 23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306. 24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill yourself”; often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306.” (emphasis supplied) 10. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi)4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt on the suicidal ideation and complex behaviour in human beings and held that: 4 (2009) 16 SCC 605 “Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self- protection or an escapism from intolerable self.” (emphasis supplied) 11. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayyub v. State of U.P.,5 summarized the law on the point as follows; “20. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section 306IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306IPC (see Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide (see Amalendu Pal v. State 5 (2025) 3 SCC 334 of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] and M. Mohan v. State [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] ).” (emphasis supplied) 12. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yadwinder Singh v. State of Punjab,6 held that mere refusal to marry does not amount to abetment to suicide and permitting continuation of trial in such circumstances where there is no instigation is not warranted. The relevant paras are as follows; “17. Thus, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC 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. The act of instigation as alleged must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide. 18. In the case on hand, even if we believe that the appellant due to opposition and pressure from his family declined to get married with the deceased, it could not be said that he led to a situation by which the deceased was left with no other option but to commit the suicide. The appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act namely suicide. It is very sad to note that a young girl took the extreme step of ending her life. It is possible that she might have felt hurt. One sensitive moment took away the life of a young girl. However, as 6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2332 judges we should not allow our minds get boggled with such thoughts. We are obliged to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence on record. In other words whether the allegations levelled constitute any offence. Mere refusal to marry even if true by itself would not amount to instigation as explained under Section 107 of the IPC. 19. We are of the view that putting the accused to trial on the basis of the evidence on record would be nothing short of travesty of justice. Trial would be an empty formality.” (emphasis supplied) 13. Taken together, the above decisions make it clear that to attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. Further, the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is essential for attracting Section 306 IPC. 14. In the backdrop of the legal position referred supra, absolutely there is no material against the petitioner to attract the offences under Section 306 of I.P.C. Even if the allegations made against the petitioners are accepted in their entirety as gospel truth and that the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 refused to permit or facilitate the marriage between Accused No. 1 and the deceased, no offence is made out, since both Accused No. 1 and the deceased were majors and legally competent to marry. The decision to contract the marriage was exclusively theirs and did not require the consent or approval of the petitioners. It cannot, therefore, be said that the alleged acts constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, as there is no material to indicate any instigation, intentional aid, or active participation on the part of the petitioners that could be said to have driven the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of the essential ingredients, the continuation of proceedings under Section 306 IPC would be wholly unsustainable. 15. Furthermore, just because the deceased belongs to Scheduled Caste, the provisions are not attracted in the clear absence of averments satisfying the ingredients of the offences of the SCs / STs. (POA) Act. 16. In the absence of any material against the Petitioners herein, and in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that it is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash proceedings against the Petitioners herein in the present crime. 17. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings pending against the Petitioners herein in S.C. SPL. No. 43 of 2024, on the file of the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs / STs. (POA) Act, Nellore. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 13.11.2025 M K K 165 THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No: 9745 of 2024 Date: 13.11.2025 M K K