Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 109 (AP)

Karreti Kousalya v. Dabbakuti Padmavathi

2020-02-11

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2020
JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/A.4 in S.C.No.412 of 2018 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Repalle to quash all further proceedings. The charge sheet was filed under Section 498-A and 306 IPC r/w 34 IPC. 2. This Court has heard Sri Rajareddi Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.4, Sri Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Counsel for the petitioner argues that as far as petitioner/A.4 is concerned, there is neither abetment of suicide nor is there demand of dowry to attract the provisions of the sections. He points out that the marriage was performed in the year 2016 and that the deceased committed suicide on 20.11.2017. Relying upon the case law which is also annexed as a material paper to the petition, namely, M.Mohan v. State rep., by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) AIR SC 1238 , V.Shankaraiah v. State of A.P., (2002) 1 ALD(Cri) 812 (AP ) and Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) AIR SC 327 and a judgment of the learned single Judge in Crl.P.No.6779 of 2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this is a fit case in which an order should be passed quashing the further proceedings in S.C.No.412 of 2018. 4. This Court, on an examination of the material and the record, notices that as far as the present petitioner/A.4 is concerned, there are general references to her in the statements that are recorded; to the effect that the petitioner did not allow the deceased to enter into the house and that she "pushed" the deceased out of the house. Apart from this, there is no specific allegation of the petitioner demanding any dowry or being actively involved in instigating a demand or intentional aiding the deceased in committing suicide. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand pointed out that this is not a case to quash all further proceedings and that the continuous harassment of the deceased drove her to suicide. He points out that the reference to the petitioner and the various statements of the witnesses is enough for further proceedings to continue. He argues that 26 witnesses were examined and charge sheet was filed, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. He points out that the reference to the petitioner and the various statements of the witnesses is enough for further proceedings to continue. He argues that 26 witnesses were examined and charge sheet was filed, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. To a similar effect the argument of Sri Rama Koteswara Rao. Both argue that quashing is not called for and that this is a matter for a trial. 6. After examining the submissions vis-a-vis the case law that is enclosed to the petition, this Court is of the opinion that abetment would clearly mean the intentional aiding of an act or the intentional aiding in the commission of the crime. Merely because a person commits suicide by being humiliated or for any other reason, it cannot be said that the abetment of an offence is made out. A bare perusal of the section and the judicial interpretation in the form of case law relied upon also makes this clear. A demand for dowry is not made out as far as the petitioner is concerned. The intentional aiding in the commission of the offence or the instigation is not at all made out in this case. Similarly, as far as the demand for dowry is concerned, it should also be accompanied by harassment or cruelty leading to suicide. A reading of the material does not show the same. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for quashing of all further proceedings as far as petitioner/A.4 is concerned in SC.No.412 of 2018 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Repalle. 8. In view of what is discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the petition has to be allowed. All further proceedings in SC.No.412 of 2018 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Repalle relating to the petitioner/A.4 are quashed. 9. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.