Dismissed

Sugavasi Chakradhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Aug 2023CRLP/2322/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to dismiss a petition seeking quashing of Criminal proceedings for abetment of suicide and cheating. The Court held that prima facie case exists and disputed facts require a trial, not being concluded at this stage. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in P.R.C. No.11/2023 was dismissed.

Sugavasi Chakradhar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2322 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sugavasi Chakradhar, S/o.Pedha Reddana, Aged aboutt 56 Years, Caste.Balija; D. No.702, Pearl Heights, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Near Raja Pusha Apts, Attapur, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶8

...Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadepalli P S Guntur Dist., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi.

¶11

2. Papireddy Maheshwar Reddy., S/o.Gangi Reddy, Aged about 63 years Caste: Reddy, Papireddigari Palle, Hasanapuram Village, Ramapuram ’ Mandal, Annamaiah District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

...Respondent/ Defacto-Complainant

¶13

oteted u" of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances Stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may Charge Sheet vide P.R.C.No.11/2023 on the file of AddI Mangalagiri, Guntur District for the Offence U/s.306 86 420 irC against the Petitioner/Sole Accused. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2023 ptelse^ Memorandum* o? Grounl of High Court mTy'S anrt U/s.306 and 420 IPC against the Petitioner/ Sole Accused ailU pass

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of arguments of Sri K.S.G ^o’’ Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2322 OF 2023

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’), is filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No.l 1 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

¶19

A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner/sole accused in crime No.653 of 2022 of Tadepalli police station, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 420 IPC. The allegations, in brief, of the charge sheet are as follows.

¶20

The deceased Pappireddy Manjunadha Reddy is son of 2nd respondent/informant. His marriage was performed with L.W.2-Sravanthi Niveditha Reddy about 5 years prior to registration of crime. He chose to do contract works like his father. In the year 2020, he. along with accused, who is well known to him. established a contract firm M/s.Sahasra Infratech using

¶21

¶22

names of daughters of accused and L.W.2- Sravanthi Niveditha Reddy, followed by execution of a Partnership Deed dated 30.09.2020 and started their work with Administrative Office at D.No.12/13, Flat No. 102, Pritvi Residency, CBIT Colony, near Pillar No. 126, Attapur, Hyderabad, with equal share of 50% under their business terms. They got some sub contract works to do Storm Water Drain works at Nellore. and after completion of all the works, they received total .4 bills amounts. But, without giving any money to the deceased, the accused . took the total bill amount and used huge money towards

¶23

his personal use. The deceased asked the accused several times to pay his share of money in the total bills and to give money to pay EMIs of bank loans which were availed by them under their firm name. The accused harassed the deceased mentally without giving any money or his share, to the deceased. Believing the deceitful words of accused, to start a firm jointly to execute the contract works and to share the money equally, the deceased along with the accused, started the ...

¶24

*
.*5 »

¶25

¶26

contract business by entering into a'partnership deed, ’ but the accused, even after receiving money under four bills, did not pay any share to the deceased and also did not give any money to pay EMIs to the banks towards loans obtained by him. Vexed with acts of cheating and harassment made by accused, the deceased committed suicide on 19.08.2022 by hanging to ceiling fan.

¶27

Basing on a police report lodged by 2nd respondent. police registered the aforesaid crime and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even accepting the entire accusations in the charge sheet to be true, no prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 306 or 420 IPC is made out. He further submitted that in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, it is essential that airthe ingredients of the offence under Section 107 IPC have to be satisfied, and those ingredients are absent in the case on hand so as to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. He further submitted that the

¶29

¶30

allegation of mere non-payment of share in the bill amounts, would not amount to abetment to. commit suicide. Hence, he prayed to quash the impugned proceedings as continuation of the same is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out personal notice to 2nd respondent. and accordingly, the learned counsel took out personal notice and filed proof of service. But, there is no representation on behalf of 2nd respondent.

¶32

On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for pt respondent-State contended that there are specific accusations as against the petitioner herein, and the petitioner is alleged to have cheated the deceased and thereby caused mental agony. and because of the acts and words uttered by petitioner herein, the deceased is alleged to have taken the extreme step of committing suicide. He further contended that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

¶33

■ . 5

¶34

petitioner are all disputed questions of fact, which have to be gone into, during course of trial. Hence, he prayed .

¶35

to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶36

6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of

¶37

justice.

¶38

7. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the

¶39

power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Honble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and orsJ, wherein the Apex Court held.

¶40

'AIR 1992 SC 604

¶41

¶42

“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 channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶43

(1) wherie 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;

¶44

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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;.

¶45

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in

SSS.

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 noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;

¶50

(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;

¶51

(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;

¶52

(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.”

¶53

Heard. Perused the record. It is alleged that the deceased is son of 2^^ respondent. He married L.W.2-Sravanthi Niveditha Reddy. In the year 2020, he,

¶54

¶55

¶56

along with accused, who is well known to him. established a contract firm M/s.Sahasra Infratech using names of daughters of accused and L.W.2-Sravanthi Niveditha Reddy, followed by execution of a Partnership Deed dated 30.09.2020 and started their work, with equal share of 50% under their business terms. They got some sub contract works to do Storm Water Drain works at Nellore and after completion of all the works, they received total 4 bills amounts. It is further alleged that the petitioner/accused, without giving any money to the deceased, took the total bill amount and used huge money towards his personal use. Though the deceased asked the accused several times to pay his share of money in the total bills and to give money to payEMIs of bank loans which were availed by them under their firm name, he did not do so and harassed the deceased mentally without giving any money or his share, to the deceased. It is further alleged that believing the deceitful words of accused to start a firm jointly to execute the contract works and to share the money equally, the

¶57

¶58

deceased along with the accused, started the contract business by entering into a partnership deed, but the accused, even after receiving money under four bills, did • not pay any share to the deceased and also did not give any money to pay EMIs to the banks towards loans obtained by him, and ultimately, vexed with acts of cheating and harassment made by accused. the deceased committed suicide on 19.08.2022 by hanging to ceiling fan.

¶59

To constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, it is essential that the ingredients of

¶60

Section 107 IPC (abetment) have to be satisfied. Section 306 IPC reads thus:

¶61

“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, or shall also be liable to fine.”

¶62

From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306

¶63

¶64

IPC, the prosecution has to establish- (i) that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused. In other words, an offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there i IS an ‘abetment’ for commission of the said crime. The. essential ingredients of ‘abetment’, as stated in Section 107 IPC, are as follows:

¶65

“Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who-firstly, 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 thirdlyintentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”.

¶66

It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 IPC.

¶67

¶68

e i I

¶69

From a reading of the allegations in the charge sheet and Section 161 CrPC statements, it is clear that there are specific accusations of abetment. : There is specific allegation that though amount covered under four bills was received, the petitioner/accused did not pay any amount to the deceased towards his share or to pay EMIs for the loans obtained from the banks, and vexed with acts of cheating and harassment made by accused, the deceased committed suicide. Prima facie, dishonest intention can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are all disputed questions of fact and the same have to be decided during the course of trial. This Court, in a proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, cannot conduct a roving inquiry to decide the truth or otherwise of the disputed questions of fact. Since there are specific accusations against the petitioner, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings.

¶70

12.

¶71

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶72

Miscellaneous Petitions, if Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶73

any. pending in this

¶74

To ^/TRUE copy// sectio^fficer / s: TwoCCs° Guntur District

vna

i I ssst

.«

HIGH COURT DATED:08/08/2023

¶79

ORDER

¶80

CRLP.No.2322 of 2023

¶81

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Sugavasi Chakradhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugavasi Chakradhar v. 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

J Kamalamma Vs the State of Ap

V.V.S. Sitaram Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vanamadi Satyasri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt M Estheru Rani Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Yeruva Naga Muni Konda Reddy (A-2) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhavanam Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh