APHC010101532021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1605/2021 Between: 1. V. ARUN KUMAR NAIDU,, S/O. V.NAGA LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. HR MANAGER, HARSHA TOYOTA, R/O H.NO.10-115, TELUGU STREET,KURNOOL-518001. 2. VASI REDDY GANGADHAR RAO,, S/O V.NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. SUPERVISOR, HARSHA TOYOTA, R/O 3- 270-341, THIMMAPURAM, DWARAKATIRUMALA WEST GODAVARI, AP-534426. KURNOOL ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATHI 2. MASTIC MANOJ, S/O. LATE MASTIC DANAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, CASTE. MADIGA, OCC. MECHANIC, HARSHA TOYOTA, R/O MANAGALAPADU VILLAGE, KURNOOL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, CELL NO. 7780676042. ...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 Courtpleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No.60 of 2021 on the file of the P.S.Kurnool Taluq and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 2 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in FIR No.60 of 2021 on the file of the P.S.Kurnool Taluq, pending disposal of the main Quash petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. SRIDEVI JAMPANI 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed by the petitioners/accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in FIR No.60 of 2020, on the file of the Police Station, Kurnool Taluq. 2. Heard Sri P.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.2 and his father, who is the deceased in the present case, worked as employees in Harsha Toyota. The petitioners herein are A.1 and A.2, who are HR Manager and Supervisor. Learned counsel would further submit that even as per the contents of the complaint, it is the case of the complainant that the deceased, who is the father, could not attend work for a period of one week. When his father went to the office, the petitioners told the deceased that he could not apply for leave as he liked, as it is not his own company. If he was not interested, he may resign from the job and stay at home. Learned counsel would further submit that the deceased committed suicide. Learned counsel would finally submit that the ingredients for the offence under Section 306 IPC are not applicable to the petitioners and prays for quashment. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that since A.1 and A.2 asked the deceased to take permanent leave, he committed 4 suicide, thinking that he may not be able to provide for the family. Learned counsel would further submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. As can be seen from the contents of the complaint, it is evident that the only allegation against the petitioners is that they made a statement to the deceased, an employee, that he could not avail leave as per his will and if he was not interested in continuing the job, he could resign. There is no specific allegation of any instigation, abetment, or intentional aiding by the petitioners that would attract the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide). 7. 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.” 5 8. This Court in Chakali Lakshmi Devi v. State of A.P., 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 Kumar Chopra v.State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367].]” (emphasis supplied) 09. 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. 10. In the present case, even accepting the allegations in the FIR and complaint, the conduct attributed to the petitioners does not disclose any overt act or deliberate intention on their part to abet the suicide of the deceased. The incident appears to have been triggered by the deceased’s personal sensitivity and perception of the workplace situation, and not due to any criminal conduct on the part of the petitioners. 11. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the 6 ingredients that would attract the offence under Section 306 IPC are not made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken as true. In that view, it is a fit case for quashment. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.60 of 2020, on the file of the Police Station, Kurnool Taluq, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA,J Date: 07.08.2025 MH 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 173 Crl.P.No.1605 of 2021 Dt.07.08.2025 MH