important point
Inherent jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr. PC is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice.

judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’). Prayer was to quash the proceedings in SC No.498 of 2001 on the file of VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, initiated against them for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’).

3.Accusations which led to the institution of the proceedings are essentially are as follows :

“Budida Krishnamurthy (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) had close friendship with the appellant (A1). About four years back he appointed deceased and others as field officers in his finance firm namely; Uma Hire Purchase and Finance. While so, the appellant no.1 joined as a partner in Kanaka Mahalaxmi Real Estate Ventures run by Mekala Ravi and Mekala Venu. The deceased and two other field officers namely; Budida Laxmaiah (L.W.7) and Thandra Mallaiah (L.W.8) sold about 15 plots in that group to Kommaipalli villagers and collected various amounts from them and handed over the same to the appellant no.1. As he did not pay the money to the Kanaka Mahalaxmi Real Estate Ventures, the other partners did not register the plots in favour of the persons, who paid the money to the deceased. Since the deceased demanded for registration of the plots in favour of the prospective purchasers, he (appellant no.1) escaped with his family from Jangaon and was staying at his in-laws house. The deceased went there and demanded registration of the plots, but the appellants abused him in filthy language and the accused neither registered the plots nor returned the amount. Due to the mental harassment and unable to bear the pressure from the purchasers of the plots, the deceased committed suicide by falling under an un-known train in the night of 17.4.2001 leaving a suicide note narrating the reasons for his committing suicide.”

4.Before the High Court the stand was that the ingredients necessary to constitute offence under Section 306 IPC are absent. There is no element of abetment. The High Court did not accept the contention taking note of the statement made in the suicide note. The High Court felt that this was not a fit case where the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is to be exercised.

5.In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no question of abetment. Merely because the person committed suicide having been insulted and humiliated due to the comments or utterances made by the accused, that does not constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings. Strong reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal1, (2005 AIR SCW 1326). Further it was submitted that there was only a vague reference to appellant no.2 wife of appellant no.1, and on that score, the appeal deserves to be allowed so far as she is concerned.

6.In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suicide note clearly refers to various acts of the appellants due to which the unfortunate step of committing suicide was taken by the victim and in any event it is not a fit case where jurisdiction under Section 482 is to be exercised.

7.Section 482 does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dea