IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of High Court u/s 48 Cr. P.C. discussed.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained – There has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. (Paras 45 and 46)
        (2001) 9 SCC 618; (1994) 1 SCC 73; (2009) 16 SCC 605 – Relied upon
        (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – When prima facie no case is made out against the accused, the High Court should exercise jurisdiction u/s 482. (Para 47)
        (2010) 10 SCC 361; (2010) 8 SCC 628 – Relied upon
        (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – No allegation of abetting suicide by the deceased against the accused – No proximity between alleged act of cruelty and suicide – Even remote connection of the appellant with the offence not made out – Refusal to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr.P.C. bad. (Paras 49 and 51)
        (2010) 1 SCC 750; 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731 – Relied upon impliedly
        (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Exercise of jurisdiction discussed. (Paras 53 to 55 and 65)
        AIR 1960 SC 866; (1976) 3 SCC 736; (1977) 2 SCC 699; (1977) 4 SCC 551; (1988) 1 SCC 692; (1992) 4 SCC 305; AIR 1945 PC 18; AIR 1945 PC 94; (1964) 2 SCR 336; 1964 AC 1254; (1977) 4 SCC 451; (1992) Suppl.1 SCC 335; (2000) 2 SCC 636; (2004) 6 SCC 522; (2005) 1 SCC 122; (2009) 7 SCC 495; (2010) 11 SCC 226 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
        These cases involve offences under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C.
       Finding of the Court:
        High Court ought to have quashed the charges u/s 306.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:

The case involves allegations of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with specific focus on whether the accused persons had the requisite mens rea and positive acts to constitute abetment (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence indicates that the initial complaint and investigation did not attribute any allegations of dowry harassment or cruelty against the appellants, and the primary accusations were directed towards specific family members, particularly Easwari (A-3) (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation reports and statements from witnesses, including the inquest and enquiry conducted by the R.D.O., did not establish a connection between the appellants and the cause of the suicide, especially lacking any evidence of instigation or active aid by the appellants (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence shows that the deceased’s death was primarily attributed to harassment by specific family members, but not the appellants, and the allegations of dowry demand or cruelty were not substantiated (!) (!) (!) .
The legal principles emphasize that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear mens rea and a positive act of instigation or aid, which are absent in this case (!) (!) .
The court highlights the importance of scrutinizing the evidence before proceeding with criminal charges, and that proceedings should be quashed if they are based on insufficient or inadmissible evidence, or if they amount to abuse of process (!) (!) (!) .
The court reaffirms that the power to quash proceedings under inherent jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly, especially when allegations do not constitute an offence or lack legal evidence (!) (!) (!) .
The final decision is to quash the charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellants, as no sufficient evidence or legal basis was found to establish their involvement in abetting the suicide (!) .
The appeals are accordingly allowed, and the proceedings against the appellants are set aside to prevent undue harassment and to uphold the principles of justice (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J. —

1. Leave granted in both the matters.

2. Since the facts of both the appeals are common, therefore, these appeals are decided by a common judgment.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 612 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2687/2010)

3. We deem it proper to take the facts of Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.2687 of 2010 filed by Velmurugan, Accused No.4 and Anna Lakshmi, Accused No.5 (for short ‘A-4 and A-5’ respectively). This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 22.02.2010 delivered by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Original Petition (MD) No.94 of 2006.

4. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

5. One Kamatchi (deceased), daughter of Duraipandi Nadar (complainant) was married to Anandraj (A-1), son of Mahalinga Nadar on 6.9.2001. Mahalinga Nadar and his wife Anna Lakshmi (A-5) had three sons whose names are shown as under :

Mahalinga Nadar

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Son(A-1) Son(A-2) Son(A-4)

| | |

Anandraj M. Mohan Velmurugan

Husband of married

deceased to

Kamatchi Easwari (A-3)

Anandraj (A-1) even after marriage with Kamatchi (the deceased)stayed with his two brothers and parents in the joint family. Kamatchi delivered a female child on 7.1.2003. Accused Anandraj’s elder brother, M. Mohan (A-2) and his wife Easwari (A-3) owned a Qualis car. On the date of Pongal, i.e., on 14.01.2005, Kamatchi’s in-laws family planned a visit to the Theme Park at Madurai from Karaikudi. Deceased Kamatchi, her husband Anandraj (A-1) were denied the use of the said family car. Other members of the family had gone to the Theme Park in the family car whereas the deceased Kamatchi and her husband Anandraj (A-1) were told by Easwari (A-3) to reach the destination by public bus who is alleged to have said to Kamatchi that “if you want to go by a car, you have to bring a car from your family”.

6. Kamatchi along with her husband Anandraj and a child, took a public transport(bus) from Karaikudi to Madurai for reaching the said Theme Park and returned to her matrimonial home in a bus. Kamatchi was deeply hurt by the taunting statement of Easwari (A-3) regarding denial of the use of family car.

7. Immediately thereafter, Kamatchi demanded a car from her father for personal use and after four days, i.e., on 18.1.2005 at about 1.30 p.m. she committed suicide by hanging herself in her bedroom using her sari.

8. On receipt of the information, the father of the deceased Kamatchi reached Karaikudi and filed a complaint with the Karaikudi Police Station (South) at about 5.00 p.m. alleging that his son-in-law Anandraj (A-1) and his elder brother’s wife Easwari (A-3) were responsible for his daughter’s suicide. On receipt of the said complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karaikudi (South) Police Station registered a case under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by assigning Crime No.13/2005 on 18.01.2005.

9. The Sub Inspector of Police forwarded a copy of the First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.’) to the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short ‘R.D.O.’) to hold an inquest and also a copy to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (for short ‘D.S.P.’), Karaikudi, for further investigation, who commenced inquiry on the same day as Kamatchi had committed suicide within three and a half years of her marriage.

10. The D.S.P., Karaikudi on receipt of the F.I.R. from the Karaikudi South Police Station, took up the complaint for investigation and filed an Alteration Report on 19.1.2005 before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, Karaikudi under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. against Anandraj (A-1) and Easwari (A-3) respectively.

11. The R.D.O. commenced enquiry on 18.1.2005 and examined many witnesses and on 3rd February, 2005 a report was sent by him to the D.S.P. in which he had categorically stated that there was no dowry harassment in