Allowed

Pedada Rama Mohana Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Feb 2020CRLP/13454/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed proceedings for abetment to suicide. The court held that mere mental harassment or quarrels without positive acts of instigation, conspiracy, or aid amounted to no prima facie case under Section 306 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; proceedings against petitioners in P.R.C. No. 11 of 2018 quashed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Pedada Rama Mohana Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.13454 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A5 & A7 in PRC No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w.Sec.34 IPC.

¶4

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased-Chigilipalli Ramesh is the son of the 2^nd respondent who was working as Assistant Engineer, A.P.Transco, Eluru, West Godavari District. Chigilipalli Ramesh fell in love with A-1 and both the families performed their marriage on 11.02.2016 at Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Temple, Arasavelli, as per their caste custom in the presence of elders. After the marriage, A1 to A7 developed an evil intention to get the deceased separated himself from his family members. A1 proclaimed to have loved deceased Chigilipalli Ramesh only for his earnings but not to lead conjugal life with him. A1 used to enquire about the moments of the deceased Chigilipalli Ramesh whenever he proceeded on duty. Disturbed with these acts, the deceased Chigilipalli Ramesh got perverted and unable to bear the mental agony, the deceased Chigilipalli Ramesh committed suicide by hanging at the house of their in-laws situated at P & N Colony at Srikakulam. Immediately, the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant and his family members arrived at Srikakulam and found the deceased lying dead on a bench in the mortuary of RIMS hospital. The 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant lodged a complaint with the Srikakulam II Town Police Station about the occurrence of incident and on the basis of the

¶5

¶6

JUD,J Crl.P.13454 of 2018

¶7

complaint, the police registered Crime No.134 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w.34 IPC and issued FIR.

¶8

On the basis of the FIR the Investigating Agency took up investigation and examined as many as 21 witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

¶9

On the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, filed charge sheet before the Magistrate, having concluded that there is prima facie material to proceed against these petitioners/A5 & A7. The petitioners filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 r/w.34 IPC, as there was no allegation that these petitioners abetted the deceased Chigilipalli Ramesh to commit suicide and that the reason for commission of suicide was due to thought of disturbance. Apart from that, the suicide note also does not disclose anything to establish prima facie that these petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 306 r/w.34 IPC and in the absence of any prima facie material against these petitioners to proceed further for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w.34 IPC, continuation of the proceedings against these petitioners is an abuse of process of the court and requested to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A5 & A7 in PRC No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w.34 IPC.

¶10

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions which were mentioned in the petition.

¶11

The basis for registration of a crime against the petitioners and issuance of FIR and conducting investigation is the report lodged by de

¶12

¶13

JUD,J Crl.P.13454 of 2018

¶14

facto complainant, which set the criminal law into motion. Even if the allegations are accepted, there is absolutely no prima facie material against these petitioners who are A5 & A7 in PRC No.11 of 2018. The statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C are also silent with regard to abetment, except an allegation that due to ill-treatment by his wife, and her family members, the deceased Chigilipalli Ramesh suffered mental agony and unable to bear with it committed suicide.

¶15

Petitioner No.2/A7 is the sister of the wife of the deceased Chigilipalli Ramesh, and petitioner No.1/A5 is the husband of the 2^nd petitioner/A7. The present criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A5 & A7 in PRC No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam on the ground that picking up quarrel by the petitioners/A5 & A7 with the deceased do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 r/w.34 IPC. According to the allegations made in the charge sheet, due to unbearable harassment caused to the deceased by the petitioners/A5 & A7 and others the deceased committed suicide. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A5 & A7 while stating that the offence under Section 306 r/w.34 IPC does not attract to the petitioners/A5 & A7 places reliance on the judgment of this court in V.Shankaraiah v. State of A.P¹ where the learned single Judge of this court has held that “when there is no evidence that the accused aided or induced the deceased to commit suicide, the charge against the accused is liable to be quashed”. The learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in

¶16

M.Mohan v. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of

¶17

1 2002 (1) ALD Cri.812

¶18

¶19

JUD,J Crl.P.13454 of 2018

¶20

Police² where it is held that “abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained”.

¶21

From the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case law, it is clear that the act done by the petitioners/A5 & A7 must be of such nature which led the deceased to commit suicide, having no other option, except to commit suicide. In the entire First Information Report there is no allegation that the deceased committed suicide having no other option except to commit suicide. The allegations made in the charge sheet only show that on account of unbearable harassment by the petitioners, the deceased suffered mentally and committed suicide.

¶22

“Abetment has been defined in Section 107 IPC to mean that:-

¶23

“A person abets the doing of a thing, who –

¶24

Firstly – Instigates any person to do that thing; or

¶25

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

¶26

Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing”

¶27

While deciding a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the court has to look into the allegations made in the complaint and the material, if any annexed to the complaint to find out whether the complainant made out any prima facie case to constitute an offence under the provisions of any penal law and this court cannot appreciate the evidence but evaluate the material on record, in view of the limited scope and jurisdiction conferred on it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶28

2 AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1238

¶29

¶30

JUD,J Crl.P.13454 of 2018

¶31

In so far as the petition filed by the Accused Nos.4 & 6 in Crl.P.No.6779 of 2018 for quashing the same proceedings in PRC No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w.Sec.34 IPC, this court on perusal of the entire material on record, including the statements of the witnesses, on discussing the provision of law and judgments of the Apex Court rendered on similar issues, made an elaborate discussion and allowed the said criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against them, vide orders dated 11.10.2018, observing that there is no substantial material against Accused Nos.4 & 6 that they abetted the deceased Chigilipalli Ramesh and due to their acts he committed suicide.

¶32

Though 21 witnesses are examined by the Investigating Agency, their statements do not disclose that the petitioners/A5 & A7 instigated or aided or committed any illegal act to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The only allegation made by the de facto complainant is that the petitioners/A5 & A7 are responsible for the death of the deceased. There is no allegation that these petitioners abetted the deceased Chigilipalli Ramesh to commit suicide. The suicide note also does not disclose anything to establish prima facie that these petitioners by their act, or illegal omission intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. The statements of the witnesses are silent that these petitioners with mens rea picked up quarrel of driving the deceased to commit suicide. There is no material, direct or indirect, to show that the accused had either instigated or conspired or aided the deceased in committing the suicide. Mere abusing or picking up quarrel is not sufficient to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w.34 IPC. In the

¶33

¶34

JUD,J Crl.P.13454 of 2018

¶35

absence of any material, this court has no other option except to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A5 & A7 in PRC No.11 of 2018.

¶36

In view of the afore held discussion, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A5 & A7 in P.R.C.No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w.34 IPC.

¶37

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

¶38

consequence.

¶39

J. UMA DEVI, J

¶40

Date: 27.02.2020 Dsr

Pedada Rama Mohana Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pedada Rama Mohana Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Matta Nagarjuna Nanda at Matta Nagarjuna Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramavath Dharmi Bai, Vs Vadithe Hanumanthu Naik

Gariga Harinadh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K Lakshmi Vs Vitta Kristappa

K.S.Nazeer Basha Vs S F Banu

Mrs.Lakshmi Vs Vitta Kristappa