Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 121 (AP)

Surla Hema Sundara Rao, @ Nani v. State Of A. P.

2025-01-21

V.SUJATHA

body2025
ORDER : Since both the Criminal Petitions arose out of same Crime Number and the issue involved in both the cases is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Criminal Petition No.2854 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner/A.1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,) seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.41 of 2021 on the file of Anakapalli Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC against the petitioner herein, while Criminal Petition No.3529 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner/A.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.41 of 2021 on the file of Anakapalli Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC against the petitioner herein. 3. Petitioners in both the Criminal Petitions are A.1 and A.2 respectively, who are arrayed as accused in Crime No.41 of 2021. The 2 nd respondent-de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before Anakapalli Town Police Station, alleging that her husband Surla Venkata Simhadri Appalanaidu @ Naidu was the Correspondent of Sri Venkateswara Vidyanikethan, Kundram Village of Anakapalli Mandal and he is living by running a school at Kundram Village. Due to pandemic of Corona Virus, the said school was closed and they left the village and started residing at Chinababu Colony, Anakapalli along with his mother. The husband of the 2 nd respondent-complainant is having some ancestral landed property at R.Bheemavaram village and due to some financial and family problems, he intended to sell the said land to clear off their debts, and accordingly, he proposed to sell their land. But, his brother Sri Surla Hema Sundara Rao and his mother Surla Chellayyamma did not agree for such proposal and objected for not selling his share of land and harassing him mentally and physically. Due to such unbearable harassment, the husband of the complainant vexed with his life committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan with the chunni on 30.10.2021 at 18.00 hours in a rented house at Chinababu Colony. On seeing the same, the complainant shouted loudly and neighbours came there and shifted him to NTR Hospital for treatment. During examination, the doctor declared him as died. On seeing the same, the complainant shouted loudly and neighbours came there and shifted him to NTR Hospital for treatment. During examination, the doctor declared him as died. Prior to the death, he recorded a voice message stating that his mother and his brother are responsible for his death as they are objecting for selling his share of land and forwarded the said message to their relatives through Whatsapp. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.41 of 2021 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners in both the cases are innocent of the offence and they never committed any offence much less the alleged offence. The allegations made in the complaint are bereft of any ingredients to attract the offence alleged against the petitioners. He submits that the ingredients of Section 306 and 107 of IPC have not attracted to the petitioners, as the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are neither abettors nor had any motive or intention for doing so. He further submits that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true, it cannot be established that there is a nexus between the commission of suicide by the deceased and the alleged abetment by the petitioners/A1 and A2.The complaint does not disclose that prior to the alleged suicide, there was cruelty either orally or physically meted out by the deceased because of the acts of the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 and due to which the deceased had taken his life. As such, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC does not attract to the petitioners/A1 and A2. He further submits that as the ingredients of any offence as alleged are not attracted to the petitioners/A1 and A2, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and prays for quashing the proceedings. 6. As such, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC does not attract to the petitioners/A1 and A2. He further submits that as the ingredients of any offence as alleged are not attracted to the petitioners/A1 and A2, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and prays for quashing the proceedings. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are guilty of the offence of abetment and before committing suicide, there was a voice message recorded by the deceased that the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are responsible for his death as they are not allowing him to sell his share of land, and hence, there is a nexus between the commission of suicide by the deceased and the abetment by the petitioners. Since the offence alleged against the petitioners is serious in nature, the truth or otherwise of which will be determined during the course of trial and there are no valid grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings at this stage and prays to dismiss the criminal petitions. 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in Crime No.41 of 2021on the file of Anakapalli Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 8. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 9. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are limited and circumscribed so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court, while sitting under Section 482 jurisdiction, is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 10. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents.The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and other, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows : “ 102. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents.The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and other, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows : “ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 11. Keeping in view the legal position stated above,before examining the facts of the case herein, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 306 IPC and Section 107 of IPC, which reads as under:- 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 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.- Internationally aides, by any act or illegal omission, 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. 12. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2001 (9) SEC 618 the Hon’ble Apex Court had examined the scope of meaning of instigation within meaning of that expression under Section 107 of Indian Penal Code and held as under:- “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect. Or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 13. Further in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P, AIR 2010 SC 327 the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with “abetment” held as under:- “20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 21. State of A.P, AIR 2010 SC 327 the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with “abetment” held as under:- “20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 21. The intention of the Legislature and the ration of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 14. A thorough reading of the portions extracted above makes it clear that for abetting an offence, the person abetting must have intentionally aided the commission of the crime and abetment requires an instigation to commit or intentionally aiding the commission of a crime. It presupposes a course of conduct or action which facilitates another to end life. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 15. The law is well settled that in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, 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 instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16. The allegation that the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are solely responsible for the suicide said to have been committed by the husband of the 2 nd respondent-complainant, as they are objected the deceased for not selling his share of land and harassed the deceased mentally and physicallycannot be considered to be a cause either direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.There is no allegation that any act was done by the petitioners in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the petitioners can amount to instigation to commit suicide. There is absolutely no averment that the present petitioners had caused any harm to the deceased or was in any way responsible for the alleged commission of suicide. In the absence of any proof of instigation or incitement, it is impossible to conclude that mere acts of the petitioners in objecting the deceased for selling his share of land creates a situationleading to the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide.Hence, this court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was not made out against the petitioners and thus, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitioners are allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.41 of 2021 on the file of Anakapalli Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.