Mere allegations of harassment do not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without direct evidence linking the accused's actions to the deceased's decision to commit suicide.

ORDER :

V.Sujatha, J.

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner herein to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.104 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC on the file of the Srikalahasthi Rural Police Station, Tirupati Urban.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner herein is Accused No.1 and the 2^nd respondent herein is the de-facto-complainant. The complainant lodged a complaint, alleging that on 07.06.2020, in the morning hours at 6:10 A.M., one Mr. Bharath Prajapathi, who is working as labour in Srikalahasthi Pipes Limited, came to their tea shop and had a cup of tea. After some time, he went up to the building, where, he was staying, accidentally he caught hold of an electric wire running through their house and fell down on the wall. The complainant, on seeing the said incident, went there and tried to save him with the help of stick, but, at that time, Mr. Bharath Prajapathi was died due to electrical shock and went to unconscious stage. While he was shifting to the hospital in ambulance, he was declared as dead. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.104 of 2020 under Section 174 Cr.P.C was registered (death due to electrical shock). Thereafter, after inquest conducted on the dead body and on the memo filed by the police, section of law was altered to under Section 306 IPC from u/s 174 Cr.P.C.

3. On 31.08.2021, this Court passed the following interim order:

In the said facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to registration of F.I.R in Crime No.104 of 2020 of Srikalahasthi Rural Police Station, including arrest of the petitioner, till the next date of hearing.

4. Heard Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Koutilya, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is no way connected to the alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in the alleged crime. In fact, the petitioner was working as Chief Operating Officer in Srikalahasthi Pipes Limited, which is one of the leading manufacturers of Ductile Iron Pipes in India. He submits that even the allegations of the complaint, if it were taken to be true and accepted at their face value, no offence is made out under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner as there was no whisper about the physical and active involvement of the petitioner. He further submits that even assuming that the petitioner herein had asked the deceased to work 45 hours, it cannot be equated into the abetment for the deceased to commit suicide. Since the incident had taken place on the fateful day, it can be considered to be proximate cause of the incident and the implication of the petitioner in the alleged crime basing on the alteration memo is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and no offence as alleged is committed by the petitioner and hence he prays to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that due to the physical and mental harassment by the petitioner to ask the deceased to work extra hours beyond the working hours can be considered to be abetment, to the deceased to commit suicide. He submits that basing on the statements made by the de-facto complainant, a memo is filed altering the offence 2 (1) under Section 306 IPC . There is an active involvement of the petitioner by way of harassment to the deceased to work extra hours amounts to abetment, which amounts to commit suicide. The offence as alleged is serious in nature and as the truth or otherwise of the allegations of the complaint will be determined by competent Criminal Court, there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and hence he prays to dismiss the criminal peti