Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 248 (KAR)

K. Kamala v. State of Karnataka

2012-03-16

V.SURI APPA RAO

body2012
Judgment : V. Suri Appa Rao, J 1. The petitioner has filed his petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2092/2006 registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 309 IPC on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Kundapura, Udupi District. 2. Petitioner is working as incharge Head Mistress at Zilla Panchayat Modern Higher Primary School Karkada, Udupi Taluk. Due to ill-treatment, black mail tactics and anonymous complaints written against the petitioner by one V.G. Maiya @ Venkatesh Maiya, President of School Development Management Committee (SDMC), Zilla Panchayat Modern Higher Primary School Karkada, Udupi Taluk, the petitioner attempted to commit suicide by taking B.P. tablets in excess and also tried to hang herself to the fan by keeping a suicide note dated 23.12.2005. However, due to the timely medical treatment, the petitioner was survived. 3. Thereafter, the respondent-Pollee registered a case in Crime No. 199/2005 against V.G. Maiya for the offence punishable under sections 309 and 109 of IPC. Subsequently, the respondent police failed to file charge sheet against him. Therefore, the husband of the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act seeking details of the case. Thereafter, the respondent Police filed charge sheet against V.G. Maiya on 11.04.2006. The same is numbered as C.C. No. 2091/2006. They also registered another case in Crime No. 57/2006 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 309 IPC, after lapse of four months in order to weaken the case of Mr. V.G. Maiya. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case against petitioner in C.C. No. 2092/2006. 4. Aggrieved by the proceedings in C.C.No. 2092/2006 registered against the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that respondent-police registered a case against her for the offence punishable under section 309 IPC, after a lapse of more than four months. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance against petitioner is illegal and unlawful. The respondent police registered the case against petitioner due to the influence of Mr.V.G. Maiya in order to weaken his case that too after a lapse of four months, which is unsustainable in the eye of law. 6. The respondent police registered the case against petitioner due to the influence of Mr.V.G. Maiya in order to weaken his case that too after a lapse of four months, which is unsustainable in the eye of law. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is a hard working teacher and she is at the fag end of her service and concentrating on her teaching profession. He further submitted that at the instance of V.G. Maiya, the respondent Police have registered a case against the petitioner to tarnish her image as a counter to the case filed against V.G. Maiya. 7. As seen from the records, the alleged incident took place on 23.12.2005, but the police have registered the case against the petitioner in Crime No. 57/2006 on 11.04.2006. It appears that when the husband of the petitioner pursued the matter with the police for not filing case against one V.G. Maiya on the complaint given by him, while filing charge sheet against V.G. Maiya, the respondent Police have registered a case against the petitioner also after a lapse of four months. 8. In the ease of P. Rathinam Vs. Union of India and another, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1844 , the Constitutional validity of section 309 was challenged and the Supreme Court held that the provisions for punishment in the attempt to commit suicide is cruel and irrational and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it deserves to be effaced from the statute book to humanize penal laws. 9. The above decision has subsequently been overruled in the case of Smt. Gian Kaur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1996 SC 946 , wherein the Honarable Supreme court held that the attempt to commit suicide is an offence and provisions of punishing this offence as laid down in section 309 are not constitutional. 10. In the instant case, it is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner attempted to commit suicide by taking over dose B.P. tablets and also tried to hang herself to the fan by keeping a suicide note dated 23.12.2005 alleging ill-treatment and blackmail tactics and mental torture by V.G. Maiya @ Venkatesh, the President of SDMC. The FIR indicates The petitioner attempted to commit suicide on 23.12.2005, but the respondent police registered the case against the petitioner on 11.04.2006 and subsequently filed charge sheet. 11. The FIR indicates The petitioner attempted to commit suicide on 23.12.2005, but the respondent police registered the case against the petitioner on 11.04.2006 and subsequently filed charge sheet. 11. The copy of the charge sheet filed against the petitioner clearly indicates that the petitioner tried to commit suicide and Dr. Bhaskar Maiya the husband of the petitioner is cited as an eye-witness to the incident. The report dated 25.02.2006 given by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalore, reveals the presence of Atenolol and Alprazolam in the glass bottle sent to the Laboratory for examination. The medical certificate dated 07.04.2006 issued by Dr. P.S.V. N. Sharma, who was cited as a witness in the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner shows that the petitioner was suffering from an emotional disorder consequent to stressors faced by her in her work place. It is further mentioned in the certificate that the distress caused by the stressors made her attempt suicide after which she was admitted under Medicine department. She has subsequently been on out patient treatment in their department. 12. In order to establish the offence under section 309 IPC, the prosecution must show that the act of the accused amounted to an attempt and that the attempt was complete by doing an act towards the commission of suicide. 13. In the instant case, the contents of the charge sheet indicates the petitioner was immediately shifted to the Hospital by her husband and the petitioner has chosen to take treatment without protest and that the petitioner had taken the excess dose of Atneolol and Alprazolam tablets which are admittedly not sufficient for causing death. The medical certificate dated 07.04.2006 issued by Dr. P.S.V.N. Sharma also does not indicate that the excess medicines said to have been taken by the petitioner are harmful and sufficient to destroy herself. 14. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the material produced by the prosecution does not amount to attempt and that the attempt made by the petitioner was not completed towards the commission of suicide. Since the husband of the petitioner, who is a sole witness to the alleged attempt to commit suicide by the petitioner, may not support the prosecution case, no useful purpose will be served even if the case against the petitioner is allowed to continue. Since the husband of the petitioner, who is a sole witness to the alleged attempt to commit suicide by the petitioner, may not support the prosecution case, no useful purpose will be served even if the case against the petitioner is allowed to continue. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and in view of the age and occupation of eh petitioner, who is working as a School teacher, this court feels that there are valid grounds to quash the proceedings instituted against the petitioner for the offence under section 309 IPC. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C. N.2092/2006 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Kundapura, Udupi District, are quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.