Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1640 (TS)

State of Telangana v. The State of Telangana

2025-11-26

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER: J.SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 768 of 2023 on the file of the Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District (presently Jangaon District), wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 4 for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). 2. Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Jalli Narendar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.11.2023, the police at Jangoan received a complaint from the respondent No.2 regarding a dispute with his agnates, including accused No.1 and others, over agricultural land. On 25.11.2023, both parties and their representatives met at the agricultural fields to resolve the dispute. The petitioner, representing the opponents, allegedly scolded the respondent No.2 and his family. During the meeting, the deceased (younger son of respondent No.2) demanded fair resolution, to which the petitioner allegedly replied that not even an inch of land would be given. Feeling hurt, the deceased later went to Cheetakoduru Dam and consumed pesticide. Despite being shifted to hospitals in Jangoan and Warangal, he succumbed to the injuries. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against his agnates, including the petitioner. Basing on the same, the present complaint has been filed. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime solely on the ground that he acted as a mediator between the defacto complainant and accused Nos. 1 to 3 in resolving property disputes relating to agricultural land. The petitioner never instigated the deceased to commit suicide, nor is there any act of abetment attributable to him. 5. He further submitted that the defacto complainant implicated the petitioner as an accused only to resolve the civil disputes pending between him and accused Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 2 has made omnibus allegations against the petitioner, which do not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC. Hence, continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner is clear abuse of process of law. 6. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 2 has made omnibus allegations against the petitioner, which do not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC. Hence, continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner is clear abuse of process of law. 6. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayyub and others v. State of UP , [ (2025) 3 SCC 334 ] and M.Mohan v. State , [(2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 626]. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently contended that the petitioner abused the deceased, and at the instance of the petitioner and other accused, the deceased committed suicide. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner which attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not is a matter to be determined during the course of investigation, and the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at the stage of the crime. Therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is reveals that there are property disputes between accused Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 2. The petitioner, who is an ex-MPTC member, acted as a mediator/elder between the two parties. The only allegations levelled against the petitioner are that he abused the deceased and allegedly stated that he would not allot even a cent of land in favour of the deceased. The major allegations are levelled against accused Nos. 1 to 3. 10. It is relevant to extract Section 107 of IPC and Section 306 of IPC, which reads as follows: “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.” “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.” 11. In Ayyub supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the proceedings under Section 306 IPC, holding that the allegations did not satisfy the statutory requirements of abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC. In Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh , [ (2025) 4 SCC 801 ] , the Supreme Court had earlier clarified that casual utterances, expressions of anger, ordinary domestic discord, or general harassment, without the requisite mens rea or proximate incitement, do not amount to instigation to commit suicide. Reinforcing these principles, the Court in Ayyub relied on Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat , [ (2010) 8 SCC 628 ] , Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal , [ (2010) 1 SCC 707 ] , and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh , [ (2001) 9 SCC 618 ] , to reiterate that the alleged conduct must be so compelling as to leave the victim with no other option but to end their life, and that there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement. In M. Mohan supra in particular, the Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored that abetment requires a definite mental process of instigation or intentional aid, and that in the absence of any positive act on the part of the accused to provoke or facilitate the suicide, conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained; upon evaluating the record, the Court found that the appellants were not even remotely connected with the offence. In view of certain deficiencies and the absence of the essential ingredients of abetment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the proceedings as an abuse of process and directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team headed by a DIG for a fresh and comprehensive reinvestigation into the unnatural death of the deceased. 12. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. , [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731] , the husband, his mother, and sister-in-law of the deceased Khemabai were convicted under Section 306 IPC based mainly on her dying declaration alleging harassment, beatings, and threats of a second marriage. 12. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. , [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731] , the husband, his mother, and sister-in-law of the deceased Khemabai were convicted under Section 306 IPC based mainly on her dying declaration alleging harassment, beatings, and threats of a second marriage. The Supreme Court held that mere allegations of harassment, without proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding as required under Section 107 IPC, did not constitute abetment of suicide. The Court found the conviction under Section 306 unsustainable. Though Section 498-A IPC (introduced in 1983) could have applied, the Court declined to substitute the charge after such a long lapse of time. Since the husband and mother-in-law had already served their sentences, their appeals were treated as infructuous, while the sister-in-law was acquitted. 13. In Chakali Lakshmi Devi and others v State of Andhra Pradesh , [2024 (3) ALD(Crl.) 730 (AP)] and another, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dealt with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No.72 of 2019, registered under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC against the petitioners, who are the in-laws of the deceased. The complaint alleged that following a quarrel, Accused No.1 (mother-in-law) lodged a police complaint, after which the complainant’s son consumed pesticide and died. The Court held that merely approaching the police for redressal cannot be construed as “abetment” under Section 107 IPC, as there was no instigation, conspiracy, or aiding in the suicide. Referring to Bhajanlal’s case and other precedents, the Court observed that the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC. Accordingly, it quashed the proceedings against the petitioners, allowing the criminal petition. 14. In the case on hand, the sole allegation against the petitioner is that he abused the deceased and stated that he would not assign even a single cent of land in his favor. Even if this allegation is taken at its face value, it does not satisfy the ingredients of instigation or intentional aid as required under Sections 306 and 107 IPC. Even if this allegation is taken at its face value, it does not satisfy the ingredients of instigation or intentional aid as required under Sections 306 and 107 IPC. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the above-mentioned judgments, mere quarrels, expressions of anger, denial of a civil claim, or harsh words spoken in the context of disputes do not constitute abetment of suicide unless they are shown to have been intended to provoke, incite, or compel the deceased to take his life. There is no material in the present case to indicate any positive act of instigation, any mens rea on the part of the petitioner, or any conduct so compelling as to leave the deceased with no alternative except to commit suicide. Thus, applying the principles laid down in the above decisions, the allegations against the petitioner do not make out an offence under Section 306 IPC. 15. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned supra, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings for the offence under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law and it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 16. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No. 768 of 2023 on the file of the Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District (presently Jangaon District), are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.