Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 250 (AP)

Suresh Kandelwal v. State Rep

2025-02-10

V.SUJATHA

body2025
ORDER : V.Sujatha, J. The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner herein to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.104 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC on the file of the Srikalahasthi Rural Police Station, Tirupati Urban. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner herein is Accused No.1 and the 2 nd respondent herein is the de-facto-complainant. The complainant lodged a complaint, alleging that on 07.06.2020, in the morning hours at 6:10 A.M., one Mr. Bharath Prajapathi, who is working as labour in Srikalahasthi Pipes Limited, came to their tea shop and had a cup of tea. After some time, he went up to the building, where, he was staying, accidentally he caught hold of an electric wire running through their house and fell down on the wall. The complainant, on seeing the said incident, went there and tried to save him with the help of stick, but, at that time, Mr. Bharath Prajapathi was died due to electrical shock and went to unconscious stage. While he was shifting to the hospital in ambulance, he was declared as dead. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.104 of 2020 under Section 174 Cr.P.C was registered (death due to electrical shock). Thereafter, after inquest conducted on the dead body and on the memo filed by the police, section of law was altered to under Section 306 IPC from u/s 174 Cr.P.C. 3. On 31.08.2021, this Court passed the following interim order: In the said facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to registration of F.I.R in Crime No.104 of 2020 of Srikalahasthi Rural Police Station, including arrest of the petitioner, till the next date of hearing. 4. Heard Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Koutilya, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is no way connected to the alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in the alleged crime. In fact, the petitioner was working as Chief Operating Officer in Srikalahasthi Pipes Limited, which is one of the leading manufacturers of Ductile Iron Pipes in India. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is no way connected to the alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in the alleged crime. In fact, the petitioner was working as Chief Operating Officer in Srikalahasthi Pipes Limited, which is one of the leading manufacturers of Ductile Iron Pipes in India. He submits that even the allegations of the complaint, if it were taken to be true and accepted at their face value, no offence is made out under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner as there was no whisper about the physical and active involvement of the petitioner. He further submits that even assuming that the petitioner herein had asked the deceased to work 45 hours, it cannot be equated into the abetment for the deceased to commit suicide. Since the incident had taken place on the fateful day, it can be considered to be proximate cause of the incident and the implication of the petitioner in the alleged crime basing on the alteration memo is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and no offence as alleged is committed by the petitioner and hence he prays to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that due to the physical and mental harassment by the petitioner to ask the deceased to work extra hours beyond the working hours can be considered to be abetment, to the deceased to commit suicide. He submits that basing on the statements made by the de-facto complainant, a memo is filed altering the offence 2 (1) under Section 306 IPC . There is an active involvement of the petitioner by way of harassment to the deceased to work extra hours amounts to abetment, which amounts to commit suicide. The offence as alleged is serious in nature and as the truth or otherwise of the allegations of the complaint will be determined by competent Criminal Court, there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and hence he prays to dismiss the criminal petition. 7. The offence as alleged is serious in nature and as the truth or otherwise of the allegations of the complaint will be determined by competent Criminal Court, there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and hence he prays to dismiss the criminal petition. 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the proceedings in Crime No.104 of 2020 on the file of Srikalahasthi Rural Police Station, Tirupati Urban, is liable to be quashed against the petitioner herein by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 o f Cr.P.C.?” 8. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.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. 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. 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. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In “ R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab , [ AIR 1960 SC 866 ] ”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 10. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 . It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “ Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar , [ AIR 1990 SC 494 ] ” 11. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (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 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. (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. (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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 306 IPC and Section 107 IPC 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." 14. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under: "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. Explanation 1.- A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is aid to instigate the doing of that thing. -Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.- A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is aid to instigate 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 13. A reading of the provisions extracted above, makes it clear that in case of abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide and 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 behavior and responses/reactions. Further, in the case 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. Hence, such offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. The ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC would stand fulfilled, if the suicide is abetted by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. 14. Coming to the facts of the case, there is a contractual relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the deceased and the employer could have asked the employees to work extra hours in case of any need and that the employees are supposed to work as accordingly. The allegation herein is that the deceased is humiliated by the acts of the petitioner in asking him to work extra hours. In fact, the deceased was working as labour in Srikalahasthi Pipes Private Limited. Mere asking the deceased to work extra hour cannot be equated to abetment for the deceased to commit suicide in the absence of direct proof. It appears that the deceased was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. In fact, the deceased was working as labour in Srikalahasthi Pipes Private Limited. Mere asking the deceased to work extra hour cannot be equated to abetment for the deceased to commit suicide in the absence of direct proof. It appears that the deceased was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Generally, human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. 14. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. 15. A thorough reading of the allegations in the complaint would show that there is no material to prove that the petitioner abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In the absence of substantial material to establish the offence under Section 306 IPC , the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner accused amounts to an abuse of the process of Court.Hence the Criminal Petition deserves to be allowed. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated in Crime No.104 of 2020, on the file of Srikalahasthi Rural Police Station, Tirupati Urban are hereby quashed. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.