Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 659 (KAR)

Prabhakara Shetty v. State

2015-06-23

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2015
ORDER : A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J. 1. A complaint was filed by CW1-Surendranath, who is the son of Nalinamma (Hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"). The allegation in the complaint is that, on 22.10.2011, at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioners/accused came near his house and demanded repayment of loan amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and in default, caused threat of getting the house auctioned and also used highly abusive language and thereby caused mental harassment, on account of which, Nalinamma, doused herself with kerosene and ignited and despite she being immediately taken to a hospital at Mysuru, the treatment having not materialized, died at 08.15 p.m., on 25.10.2011. According to the complainant, the petitioners were solely responsible for the suicidal death of his mother and that the accused abetted in his mother committing suicide. It was alleged that, since the deceased was insulted by the petitioners, she felt ashamed and committed suicide and that the overt acts committed by the accused drove the deceased to commit suicide. It was alleged that the intentional instigation and cruel conduct of the petitioners prompted the deceased to commit suicide. A complaint having been lodged on 26.10.2011 at 6.30 a.m., a case in Crime No. 428/2011 was registered and the FIR was submitted to the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Gundlupet. 2. On completion of investigation, the Police having filed charge sheet against the petitioners, for the offence punishable under S.306 read with S. 34 of IPC, cognizance having been taken and C.C. No. 428/2011 having been registered and process issued by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Gundlupet, this petition was filed under S. 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the entire proceedings of the said case. 3. Sri D.S. Hosmath, learned advocate, contended that the complaint is false, frivolous and was lodged belatedly, to avoid the liability and by threatening the petitioners. He submitted that the complainant, in order to blackmail the petitioners and prevent them from recovering the loan amount from his father, lodged the false complaint. He submitted that there being no dying declaration and the petitioners having not gone near the house of the deceased on 22.10.2011, as alleged, in as much as the petitioner No. 1 was a cardiac patient and took treatment on 20.10.2011 at Vikram Hospitals Private Limited, Mysuru. He submitted that there being no dying declaration and the petitioners having not gone near the house of the deceased on 22.10.2011, as alleged, in as much as the petitioner No. 1 was a cardiac patient and took treatment on 20.10.2011 at Vikram Hospitals Private Limited, Mysuru. He further submitted that the petitioners being respectable members of the society and if are made to face trial, would be put to irreparable loss and mental hardship. He contended that, even if the case of the prosecution is accepted on its face value, still, on the basis of the material brought on record by the prosecution, the offence under S. 306 of IPC is not made out. In support of the case of the petitioners, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in SONTI RAMA KRISHNA Vs. SONTI SHANTI SREE AND ANOTHER, AIR 2009 SC 923 (1) and contended that there being abuse of process of law by the respondents, interference with the impugned proceedings, in exercise of power under S. 482 Cr.P.C., is called for. 4. Sri B. Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP, on the other hand contended that there is ample material on record for presuming that the petitioners have abetted commission of suicide by the deceased. He submitted that, whether or not, the allegations made against the petitioners are true, will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence, which the prosecution has produced along with the charge sheet and hence, the power under S. 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot be exercised. Learned HCGP further submitted that the petitioners by misrepresentation have obtained interim stay of all further proceedings of the case and have caused delay in deciding of the case. He pointed out, that without even producing a copy of the charge sheet and annexed documents, this petition was filed and interim stay of further proceedings was obtained, which is likely to lead to the erosion of evidence. Learned counsel pointed out, that pursuant to the observations made in an order passed on 10.06.2015, the petitioners having now produced along with a memo, copies of the charge sheet and the accompanying documents, which show prima facie case for holding of trial against the petitioners, this petition is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel pointed out, that pursuant to the observations made in an order passed on 10.06.2015, the petitioners having now produced along with a memo, copies of the charge sheet and the accompanying documents, which show prima facie case for holding of trial against the petitioners, this petition is liable to be rejected. Learned HCGP contended that this Court, cannot, at this stage, form any firm opinion and the case is fit to be decided only after conducting of the trial. 5. Parameters of 'abetment' have been stated in S. 107 of IPC. S. 306 of IPC is with regard to the abetment of suicide. To bring home the offence under S. 306 of IPC, direct involvement of the person/s, in terms of the three situations appearing in S. 107 of IPC has to be established. While deciding the case, the Court will have to find out whether the allegations leveled against the accused attract any of the ingredients of S. 107 of IPC. 6. In CHITRESH KUMAR CHOPRA Vs. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI), (2009) 16 SCC 605 , Apex Court having noticed the above said statutory provisions and legal position, has held as follows: "20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. 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. 7. In PRAVEEN PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANOTHER, (2012) 9 SCC 734 , Apex Court has held as follows:- "17. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. (Vide: State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532 ; Surender v. State of Hayana, (2006) 12 SCC 375 ; Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457 ; and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree, AIR 2009 SC 923 .) 18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straight-jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which force the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 Cr.P.C." 8. In SONTI RAMA KRISHNA (supra), complaint was filed after about two and a half months of the alleged incident. There were different versions from time to time and there was no suicidal note. In the said background, an appeal filed by the complainant, assailing an order passed by the High Court, allowing a petition under S. 482 of Cr.P.C., which had been filed by the accused, was dismissed. However, it has been made clear, that normally, threshold interference should not be made under S. 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. Considering the investigation materials produced along with the charge sheet, the instant case is not a fit one to exercise the power under S. 482 of Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not in the interest of either party to discuss the matter further. Considering the investigation materials produced along with the charge sheet, the instant case is not a fit one to exercise the power under S. 482 of Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not in the interest of either party to discuss the matter further. As rightly submitted by the HCGP, the truth or otherwise of the allegation would have to be decided on the basis of evidence presented by the prosecution before the Trial Judge. However, it is made clear that nothing said in this order, shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the case pending before the Court below and that the case shall be decided on its merit. It is for the prosecution to bring home its case as alleged against the petitioners, as the burden is on the prosecution to show the circumstances, which compelled the deceased, to take an extreme step to bring an end to her life. Since the case is pending for a long period, learned trial Judge shall endeavour to decide the matter with expedition and within a period of six months from the next hearing date. In the result, the petition being untenable is rejected.