Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings for abetment to suicide. The court held that the case was not suitable for quashing and should be decided by the trial court.
Criminal Petition was dismissed; matter to be decided by the learned Magistrate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7982 of 2009 Dated 20-12-2011
Between:
M.Pradeep Reddy.
…Petitioner.
And:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7982 of 2009
ORDER:
Heard Sri M .Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
It is seen that notice is not served on the 2nd respondent who is the defacto complainant, but as will be seen this does not make any difference.
The petitioner is shown as accused No.5 in C.C.No.137 of 2008 on the file of the court of the 4th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Cyberabad. The offence alleged is under Section 306 I.P.C. It may be noted that the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is triable by a court of Session, but the learned counsel for the petitioner says that he even verified yesterday and found that the case is registered as C.C. indicating that the case is triable by a court of Magistrate. However, this is not significant and perhaps the learned Magistrate may be sitting in judgment over the matter whether the case should be registered as P.R.C. or not. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the
above case against the petitioner. The prosecution case as can be gathered from the Charge Sheet is that one Malluri Bhargav a B.Tech., second year student of Nishitha Engineering College, located in Lemoor village Kandukur Mandal committed suicide on 19-11-2008.
The petitioner and the other four accused i.e., A.1 to A.4 stated to be classmates of the deceased in the above Engineering College. The prosecution version is that all the accused harassed the deceased by attributing thefts to him and threatened him with dire consequences also by demanding money and unable to withstand the same, he committed suicide. In the record, the alleged suicide note of the deceased is found. The said suicide note reads that Sri Krishna Prasad, Sunil Verma and P.Shyam Sunder Reddy who are shown as accused A.1 to A.3 are responsible for the suicide of the deceased. In the said note, it is also mentioned that A.4 Ch.Pavan Kumar and the present petitioner A.5 M.Pradeep Reddy used to commit thefts in the college and it further indicates that thefts were attributed to the deceased.
The learned counsel for the petitioner says that suicide note would indicate only the complicity of A.1 to A.3 but not the present petitioner and that even Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses would disclose that abettment allegations are not made against the petitioner, consequently, the case against him should be quashed.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed this plea of the petitioner stating that the charge sheet specifically reads that all the 5 accused have abatted the suicide of the deceased.
It may be noted that this is not a case where on the basis of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and suicide note averments one can come to one conclusion or the other about the question as to whether the case against the petitioner is well founded or not. It may also be noted that the allegations in the Charge sheet are such that some of
them may attract even the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997 or some other lesser offences also, but the question about the applicability of the said Act or other offences and also applicability of Section 306 I.P.C. to the case on hand has to be decided by the learned Magistrate before whom the case is pending, though in the charge sheet nothing is mentioned about the offences under the said Act.
In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that this court should not exercise its discretion in faovur of the petitioner and the matter should be left open to be decided by the learned Magistrate. It shall be open for the petitioner to raise all his objections regarding the validity of the prosecution launched against him before learned Magistrate. It is reported that the petitioner is on bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________ Justice N.RAVI SHANKAR Dated 20-12-2011. Dvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7982 of 2009 Dated 20-12-2011
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner in a suicide case.
Whether the alleged involvement in thefts as per the deceased's suicide note satisfies the test for quashing proceedings.
Whether the matter is fit to be decided by the trial Magistrate instead of the High Court.
M.Pradeep Reddy
The State of Andhra Pradesh
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad
Defacto complainant
N.RAVI SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
