Allowed

Attunuri Koti Reddy at a. Rama Koti Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2022CRLP/3859/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a criminal petition to quash a case filed under Sections 306 and 34 IPC for instigation of suicide. The court held that alleged demands for money did not satisfy the ingredients of instigation or clear intention required under the relevant sections, thus quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Criminal P.No.28 of 2017 was quashed against the petitioners.

Attunuri Koti Reddy at a. Rama Koti Reddy Vs The… — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO Crl.P.No.3859 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in P.R.C.No.28 of 2017 in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. There were six persons arrayed as accused in the complaint in Crime No.118 of 2014 of Chatrai Police Station.

¶4

The facts leading to the present case are – The 4^th accused had given a complaint before the Chatrai Police Station, on 22.07.2014, complaining that a starter board in the mango garden, where he was working as a watchman, was found missing and that the said board was found installed in the field of the deceased. On the basis of the said complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police has caused an enquiry to verify the starter board available in the field of the deceased. On being called, the deceased had come to the police station and had contended that he had purchased the starter board earlier and offered to produce necessary documentation to prove the purchase. Thereafter, the elders of the village are said to have requested the Sub-inspector to leave the matter for being settled within the village itself and on that basis further enquiry was stopped by the sub-inspector of police. However, the deceased has developed the feeling that he was being treated as thief. It appears that three days prior to the death of the deceased, when he went to the milk

¶5

RRR,J 2 Crl.P.No.3859 of 2022

¶6

collection centre to sell his milk, the 6^th accused is said to have commented and insulted the deceased by saying that thieves are coming to sell milk and people who drink such milk would die. On 27.07.2014, the deceased is said to have committed suicide by consuming poison in his house by leaving a suicide note stating that accused Nos.1 to 6 are responsible for his death as he was suspected in the theft of meter board of the 4^th accused. Upon demise of the deceased, a case under section 174 of I.P.C. was registered. Subsequently, the other provisions were added after the son of the deceased, who is the de facto complainant, had filed a complaint and the same was registered as Crime No.118 of 2014 of Chatrai Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶7

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused No.4 and accused No.6, while accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 were deleted from the array of accused in the charge sheet. However, the Magistrate took cognizance against all the accused and issued process. It may also be noted that accused No.6 has passed away.

¶8

Aggrieved by the said issue of process in P.R.C.No.28 of 2017, accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed the present criminal petition to quash the case against them.

¶9

The petitioners had, initially, filed Crl.P.No.3654 of 2018 challenging the docket order dated 03.11.2017. Subsequently, the said criminal petition was withdrawn on 27.04.2022.

¶10

RRR,J 3 Crl.P.No.3859 of 2022

¶11

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y.N. Anjaneyacharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that neither the suicide note nor the statement recorded in the course of investigation or the charge sheet, bring home any allegations which would make out an offence under Sections 107 and 306 IPC. The learned Senior Counsel relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sanju Alias

¶12

Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P.,¹ ; Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,² , and Bikash Ranjan Rout vs. State Through the Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi³

¶13

Notice has been served on the de facto complainant/2^nd respondent. However, there is no representation for the 2^nd respondent.

¶14

The learned Public Prosecutor relying upon Mahendra K.C.

¶15

vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.,⁴ would contend that the Magistrate, would have the discretion to order fresh investigation in the matter.

¶16

The contours of offence under Sections 107 and 306 IPC have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., and Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P., .

¶17

1 (2002) 5 SCC 371

¶18

2 (2021) 2 SCC 427

¶19

3 (2019) 5 SCC 542

¶20

4 (2022) (2) SCC 129

¶21

RRR,J 4 Crl.P.No.3859 of 2022

¶22

10. In Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of

¶23

Maharashtra and Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered the contours of Section 107 read with Section 306 IPC from paragraphs 48 to 61. A reading of the review of law made in these paragraphs would show that the requirement to bring home the offences under these provisions is that the facts of instigation must play an active role in the commission of suicide or there should be actions which facilitate the commission of suicide. The further requirement of Section 306 IPC, to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, is that the said actions should have been undertaken with the clear intention of pushing the deceased into committing suicide. Further, the presence of a suicide note by itself would not be sufficient unless the suicide note clearly explains and describes the role of the accused in pushing the deceased to commit suicide with the clear intention of ensuring that the deceased person is pushed to a stage where he commits suicide.

¶24

In the present case, the role of the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, is said to be that they along with other accused, had approached the deceased and demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to compromise the matter of the missing starter board in the meeting of the elders of the village and were harassing the deceased when he refused to pay any such amount for compromising the matter.

¶25

Such allegation does not, in any manner, make out a case against the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the

¶26

Crl.P.No.3859 of 2022

¶27

¶28

case. None of the ingredients mentioned above are available against the petitioners herein.

¶29

The question whether the Magistrate could have taken cognizance without accepting the final report/charge sheet filed by the investigating officer and whether the said order could be passed without adducing any reasons, need not be considered in the present case as the petitioners, by withdrawing Criminal Petition No.3654 of 2018, had given up their challenge against the said order and are presently before this Court to quash the complaint itself against them.

¶30

In view of the above, the Criminal petition is allowed and P.R.C.No.28 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, is quashed against the petitioner.

¶31

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

__________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶33

2^nd December, 2022. Js.

¶34

RRR,J 6 Crl.P.No.3859 of 2022

¶35

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶36

Crl.P.No.3859 of 2022