Allowed

K.Alagumalai v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC14 Jun 2023CRL OP/1685/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the charge sheet against the petitioners regarding an attempt to commit suicide and associated criminal intimidation. Relying on Section 115 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, the Court held that persons under severe stress cannot be prosecuted under Section 309 IPC, rendering the incidental offence unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet in C.C.No.719 of 2020 pending with the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal is quashed as against the petitioners.

K.Alagumalai Vs the State Rep by Its — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.OP.No.1685 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.1685 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.Nos.923 & 924 of 2023

¶7

1.K.Alagumalai

¶8

A.Jayanthi ... Petitioners Vs.

¶9

The State Rep by its, The Inspector of Police, Nallipalayam Police Station, Namakkal District.

¶10

S.Mohankumar ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records connected with the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.719 of 2020 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Varanesh

¶13

For R1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Crl.OP.No.1685 of 2023

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records connected with the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.719 of 2020 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal and quash the same.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, petitioners have been prosecuted for the offences under Sections 309 and 506(2) of IPC . The allegations against the petitioners is that, petitioners tried to commit suicide by pouring petrol on him. When the second respondent/ defacto complainant and the policemen tried to prevent them, they made criminal intimidation stating that if they attempted to prevent them, they would also kill them with fire. It is his further submission that, Section 115 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 decriminalized the offence under Section 309 of IPC for the reason that, persons under severe stress shall not be tried and punished under Section 309 of IPC. Petitioners tried to commit suicide for the reason that the adjacent land owner was trying to usurp their land, since, they were not able to get any remedy, they were under stress and attempted to commit suicide. He further submitted that, when the petitioners cannot be prosecuted under Section 309 of IPC, ultimately

¶20

2/6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Crl.OP.No.1685 of 2023

¶23

the other offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC will also be failed.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) opposes the petition on

¶25

the ground that the trial in this case has commenced.

¶26

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶27

Section 115 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 reads as follows:

¶28

''any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless

¶29

proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code''

¶30

As per this section, if a person attempted to commit suicide shall be

¶31

presumed, unless proved otherwise that he sufferred severe stress, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 309 of IPC.

¶32

In the case before hand, it is claimed by the petitioners that, they are

¶33

under severe stress for the reason that the adjacent land owner was trying to

¶34

3/6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.OP.No.1685 of 2023

¶37

usurp their land. Since, they were not able to get any remedy, they were under stress and tried to commit suicide. Thus, this Court is of the view that, petitioners cannot be prosecuted under Section 309 of IPC. If the main offence ie, 309 of IPC fails, there is no reason for prosecuting the petitioners for incidental offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the charge sheet as against the petitioners in C.C.No.719 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal.

¶38

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is Allowed. The charge

¶39

sheet as against the petitioners in C.C.No.719 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

14.06.2023

Sma

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal.

¶44

4/6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

Crl.OP.No.1685 of 2023

¶47

The Inspector of Police, Nallipalayam Police Station, Namakkal District.

¶48

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶49

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.

¶50

Sma

¶51

5/6

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

Crl.OP.No.1685 of 2023

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.1685 of 2023

¶55

14.06.2023

¶56

6/6

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Alagumalai v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Alagumalai v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaji Vs the Inspector of Police

Lakshmi Vs The Inspector General of Police

Rajalakshmi Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Karunakaran Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Sathish Kumar Vs the State Rep by

K.Balaji Vs Inspector of Police