Dismissed

Thirupathi Mutta v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC19 Mar 2021CRLP/944/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the plea to quash FIR proceedings involving charges of abetment to suicide and cheating. Despite a settlement and compromise between the accused and the complainant, the Court held that the investigation was pending with specific prima facie allegations and serious nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; investigation in FIR No. 10B/2020 directed to continue.

Thirupathi Mutta Vs The State of Telangana and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

\ \ \

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF IUARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETTTION NO: 944 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thirupathi Multa, S/o.Venkatee, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Agriculturist, Du bbagudem Village, Kasipet I/anda l, l\rlancherial.

¶9

,.,PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad.

¶12

Tanubai Veladi, Wo.Yeshwanth Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist, Rl/o.Sangvi Village, Bale Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FlR.No.10B12020, dated 2711212020 on the file of Police Station, Bela. Adilabad District. against the petitioner, by virtue of joint memo dated 3lZl2021

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Between

¶17

Tanubai Veladj, W/o.Yeshwanth Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o,Sangvi Village, Bale lr/andal, Adilabad District.

¶18

..... PETITIONERYDEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶19

AND

¶20

The State of Telangana Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad.

¶21

......RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶22

-Thirupathi Mutta, S/o.Venkatee, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Agriculturist, Dubbagudem Village, Kasipet Mandal, Mancherial.

¶23

..... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶24

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to prays for the indulgence of this Hon.ble Court UiS. 482 of Cr.p.C.. to permit the Petitioner to compound / compromise the matter.

¶25

l.A. NO: 2OF 2021

¶26

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^{the High Court may be pleased} to record the compromise accorded between the Petitioner and^{Respondent No.2} and quash the proceedings against the Respondent No.2 herein^{i.e. Accusedin} FlR. No.10B/2020, dated 2711212020 on the file of Police Station,^{Bela, Adilabad} District,

¶27

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^{I,4emorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^{V. HarlHaran,} Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf^{of the} Respondent No.1 and of Sri. K.Giridhar, Advocate for the Respondent^{No. 2}

¶28

. . The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶30

CRIMINAL PETITION No.944 OF 2O2L

¶31

ORDERT

¶32

This petition is filed under Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC) by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.108 of 2O2O pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Bela Police Station, Adilabad district, registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 306 IPC.

¶33

Heard Sri V.Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶34

As per the complaint, dated 27.12.2O2O, the allegations leveled against the petitioner herein by the 2"d respondent are as fo11or,l s:-

¶35

i) The lna respondent is resident of Sangvi village, Bela Mandal of Adilabad district. Her husband is having Ac.8.3Oguntas of land and her brother-in-1a'nv is also having another Ac.B.3Oguntas of land in the said village. The said land is ancestral property of her husband and brother-in-larv The land belongs to the brother-in-1aw of the 2nd respondent was acquired by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (for short 'the SCCL') for the purpose of open cast mine. The compensation amount of Rs.51,87,000/- in respect of the land was deposited in the account bearing No.918010096902551 of the husband of the 2.d respondent

-t

T \

on 19.06.2019. The^{petitionerherein, lr'ho belongs to} Gundiapally (Dubbaguda)^{viilage, obtained signatures of} husband of the 2"d^{respondenton papers without intimating} him and withdrew the said^{amount lying in the account of her} husband. Her husband came to^{know about the said fact in} November, 2O2Oand since then,^{he went into depressionand} the,same caused mental agony to^{him. Husbandof the 2"d} respondent informed the said fact to^her.

¶41

ii) On25.l2.2O2O at about 11.00 A.M.,^{husband of the} 2"d respondent informed her that he^{was going to the field} where he consumed poison and came back to^{house at 5.00} P.M., and informed the 2"d respondent that^{he was not feeling} wel1. Thereafter, he got vomited. Thus, the 2''d^{respondent got} suspicion and she got pesticide sme11 and thereaJter^she shifted her husband in 108 ambulance to^{RIMS hospital at} about 7.25P.M. In the hospital, he died on 27.12.2020^at 4.40P.M., while undergoing treatment. Thus, the^petitioner abetted husband of the 2"d respondent to commit^{suicide by} withdrawing said amount of Rs.51,87,000/- from^her husband's account by obtaining his signatures and^thereby cheated him. Thus, the petitioner committed the^offencesof cheating and abetment to commit suicide.

¶42

iii) On receipt of the complaint from the 2"d^respondent, the Police, Bela Police Station, registered a case in^Cr.No.108 of 2O2O for the aJoresaid offences.

¶43

During pendency of the^{investigationinthe said} crime, the^{petitioner and the 2"d respondent settled the} disputes out of Court^{and filed the present criminalPetition} under Section^{482 Cr.P.C., toquash the proceedings in} Cr.No.1O8 of 2O2O^{in view of the fact that they have settled} their disputes and they^{haveentered into a compromise and} field^joint memo^{of compromise dated 03.02'2021Along with} Criminal Petition,^{the petitioner and the 2"d respondenthave} filed I.A.No.1^{of 2021 to permit thepetitioner to} compound /^{compromisethe matter and I'A'No'2of 2021 to} record compromise^{entered between the petitioner and the 2"d} respondent and^{therefromquashthe proceedings in the above} crime. In the^{affidavitfiled along with the I'A'No'2 of 2O2l'} the 2.d respondent^{has stated that with the interventionof} the well wishers,^{she has sorted out all the issuesand settled} all her claims amicably.^{As such, she did not intendto} further prosecute^{the case any further and as such she} expressly declared^{herconsent forallowing thequash} petition. In the^{joint memo of compromise,dated O3-O2-} 2021, reiterating^{the said fact, both the petitioner and the2nd} respondent along^{with their respective counsels, signed the} joint memo of compromise.^{By referringthe same both the} counsel seeks to^{quashthe proceedings in Cr'No'108of 2O2O'}

¶44

Learned Public^{Prosecutor, referring to the principle} laid down by the^{honorable Apex Court in State of Madhya}

¶45

'=-r

¶46

¶47

Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayanl would submit that the offence under section 3O6 IPC is an offence against the society and in view of the principles laid down ald parameters set out by the honorable Apex Court in the above decision, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶48

The honorable Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan supra categorically held that the power conferred under section.482 Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings is different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the heinous and serious offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C, which can be exercised overr,r,helmingly and predominantly. Hor.l,ever, the Courts particularly to see that those transactions arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes though the parties deserve to settle the entire disputes amongst themselves, such power cannot be exercised in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. The honorable Apex Court further held that while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P,C, to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-bailable offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/ compromise between the victim or offender, the Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused

¶49

'^{(2ot9ls scc 688}

¶50

)

¶51

and conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused absconded and why he absconded and how he had managed with the complainant to enter into the compromise.

¶52

In view of the said principle, learned counsel for the petitioner referring the contents of the complaint would submit that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner with regard to the alieged abatement by the petitioner to drive the deceased to commit suicide. He has referred Section 107 IpC which says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that things or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or il1ega1 omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. By referring the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there must be mens rea on the part of the abettor, to abet a person to commit act of suicide.

¶53

B. In support of his contention, the learned counsei for the petitioner relied on the principle laid down by the honorable Apex Court in M.Mohan v. State of Tr.Deputy Superintendent of Policez wherein the honorable Apex Court had an occasion to deal r.r,ith the Scope and ambit of section 107 and 306 IPC.

t AIR 20 11 sc 1238

t---::

'''1..",--..

-i

In the said^judgment, after referring^{to the principle} laid down in severa,l^judgments, the honorable^{Apex Court} held that the word 'suicide' in itself^{is nowhere definedin the} Indian Penal Code, however, its meaning and^{import is well} known and requires no explanation. 'sui'^means '^{self' and} 'cide'means 'killing', thus, implying an act of self-killing' In short a person committing suicide must commit it by^himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving^his object of killing himself. The honorable Apex Court, further, held that in our country, while suicide itself is not an offence considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC. The honorable Apex Court, further held that abatement of a thing has been defined under Section 107 IPC.

¶60

In M.Mohan supra, the facts therein are that the deceased wanted to use the family car to go to Theme Park at Madurai from Karaikudi along with other family members, but she was denied permission to use the car. At that juncture, A.3 therein taunted the deceased that if she wanted to go around in a car, she has to get a car from her parents. Those words deeply hurt the deceased and drove her to commit suicide. On consideration of the facts therein, the honorable Apex Court held that the High Court was not {ustified^{in rejecting the petition filed by the appellants} therein under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charges under Section 306 IPC against them. The High Court ought to

¶61

¶62

have quashed the proceedings so that the appellants who were not remotely connected with the offence under Section 306 IPC should not have been compelled to face the rigmaroles of a criminal trial.

¶63

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon another decision of the honorable Apex Court in^Wasim v. State of NCT Delhi3 r.r,herein also the honorabie^Apex Court dealt with the scope of Sections^{498-A and 306 IPC and} held that there should be clear mens rea to commit^the offence for conviction under Section 306 IPC. It^{also requires} an active act or direct act which led the^deceased to^commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have^been intended to push the deceased into such a^position that he/she committed suicide. The honorable Apex^{court by} referring to the principle laid down in M.Mohan supra^{and in} Pallem Denial Victoralions Victor Manter v.^{State of} Andhra Pradesha heid that any rvillful conduct which^{is likely} to drive a woman to commit suicide is sufficient^{for conviction} under Section 498-A IPC. Learned^counsel for^{the petitioner} has also relied upon the principle laid^{down by the honorable} Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State^{of Chattisgarhsand} also Narinder Singh v. State of^Punjabo.

¶64

In M.Mohan supra, the^{accused have approached} the High Court seeking^{quashmentof the proceedings in a}

¶65

I AtR 2019 sc 3470

¶66

4 (1997) 1 Crimes 499 (AP)

¶67

s AIR 2001 SC 3837 6 2014 6 SCC 466

¶68

¶69

¶70

Crime registered against them^{for the offencesunder Sections} 304-8, 498-A and 306 IPC. The High^{Court has quashed the} charges under Sections 304-8^{and 498-AIPC, but refused to} quash the proceedings under Section 306 IPC.^On examination of the facts of the case, the honorable^Apex Court quashed the charges under Section 306^{IPC also.} Whereas, in the present case, the matter is only at^crime stage. The crime was registered on 27.12.2020 itself.^There are, prima facie, specific allegations against the^petitioner herein. He withdrew huge amount of Rs.51,87,000/-from the account of husband of the 2nd respondent without his knowledge. Husband of the 2"a respondent is an agriculturist. He has informed the said fact of the petitioner withdrawing amount without his knowledge and went into depression, to his wife. Thus, there are, prima facie, serious allegations against him and the matter is at crime stage. Therefore, the principle laid down by the honorable Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶71

In Wasim supra, the trial Court convicted the + appellant/accused under Section 498-4 and 306 IPC. The appeal filed by the accused was allowed in part by the High Court and therefore they have approached the Apex Court. Whereas, in the present case, it is seen that the matter is at crime stage and the Investigating Officer has to investigate into the. several factual aspects including the active part or direct act and mens rea etc., on the part ol the petitioner

-.-_.--*--

herein in driving the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the facts in Wasim supra are different from the facts of the case on hand. Likewise, the principle laid down by the honorable Apex Court in Ramesh kumar and Narinder supra are also not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

¶76

In view of the above discussion, coming to the facts ol the case on hand, prima facie, there are specific ailegations against the petitioner herein as the petitioner withdrew an amount or Rs.51,g7,oo0/_ from the account bearing No. 9lgO100969O2551 of husband of the 2na respondent without his knowledge and thus cheated him. The date and amount is specifically mentioned in the complaint. There is also specific mention in the complaint d,ated, 22.12.2020 about the deceased went into depression and informing the same to his wife, the 2"d respondent herein. On 25.12.2020, he went to the field at l1.OO A.M. and came back at 5.00 p.M having consumed pesticide there and he was shifted to hospital in 108 ambulance and r,vhile taking treatment he died on 27.12.2020 at 4.40 p.M. Therefore, the 2no respondent has lodged a complaint on 27.12.2020 itself. Thus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. Several factual aspects are to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation including the aspects whether there is direct act or active act on the part of the petitioner/accused and also mens rea etc., to commit the offence etc. The honorable Apex Court in

i I

lt)

Laxmi Narayan supra categorically held that the power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P,C. of the Court to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-bailable offence under Section 320 Cr.P.C. can be exercised overwhelmingly and predominantly in cases of civil nature particularly those arising out of commercia-l transactions or arising out of matrimonial relations and family disputes and when the parties have resolved entire disputes among themselves. The said power is not to be exercised in these transactions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape and dacoity etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. The Apex Court however, held that while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-bailable offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on the society on the ground that there is settlement of compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents and conduct of the accused, namely whether the accused is absconding and why he was absconding and how he has managed with the complainant to enter into the compromise etc.

¶81

In view of the said parameters laid down by the honorable Apex Court, as discussed supra, the matter is at crime stage and investigation is pending. There are several factual aspects which are to be investigated into by the

¶82

Investigating Officer. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.1Og of 2O2O pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Bela police Station, Adilabad district though the petitioner and the 2,d respondent have settled the disputes and entered into compromise.

¶83