Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3649
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
S.A. Margaret Angel – Appellant
Vs.
State Rep By Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition No. 15407 of 2016, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7288 of 2016, 7289 of 2016
Decided On : 05-10-2018
K. Samidurai, Adv., M. Chandra Sekaran, Adv.
Mere extramarital relationship, by itself, will not amount to cruelty unless it is of such a nature as to drive the spouse to commit suicide.
Headnote:
Abetment - Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka (2016) 4 MLJ(Cri) 750
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of abetting the suicide of the deceased husband of the first petitioner. The deceased husband committed suicide after being insulted by the petitioners over the phone.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mere extramarital relationship, by itself, will not amount to cruelty unless it is of such a nature as to drive the spouse to commit suicide. The court concluded that the petitioners' actions did not constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC.
Issues: Whether the petitioners' actions constituted an offence under Section 306 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs. State of Gujarat and K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka to establish that the mere extramarital relationship, by itself, will not amount to cruelty unless it is of such a nature as to drive the spouse to commit suicide.
Final Decision: The proceedings in P.R.C.No.48 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai were quashed, and the Criminal Original Petition was allowed.
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.48 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as A-1 and A-2 in the final report.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner was married to one Gerald Raja in the year 2008 and out of the said wedlock, a female child was also born to them. It is the further case of the prosecution that even before the first petitioner married the said Gerald Raja, she had an affair with one Rajesh, who was arrayed as A-3 in the final report. This was questioned by the deceased husband of the first petitioner and on 19.03.2014, the first petitioner went missing and the deceased lodged a complaint before the respondent police. On 23.03.2014, the second petitioner is said to have contacted the deceased over phone and abused him stating that he should not have married the first petitioner and he is incapable of supporting his wife/first petitioner and the first petitioner will live only with the said Rajesh and the deceased should not go in search of the first petitioner and rather he can go and die. The first petitioner had also called the deceased and repeated the same thing that was said by her mother. The deceased not being able to tolerate the insult, is said to have committed suicide on 24.03.2014 at about 10.15 a.m., In the suicide note written by the deceased, he had blamed the petitioners and the said Rajesh for his death.
4. The complaint was given by the second respondent, who is the mother of the deceased and the first respondent had registered a First Information Report under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., Thereafter, the case was investigated and the First Information Report was altered for an offence under Section 306 IPC against all the three persons. A-3 filed a quash petition before this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.1175 of 2014 seeking to quash the First Information Report and this Court by an order dated 23.07.2015, quashed the First Information Report insofar as the A-3 is concerned.
5. Subsequently, the respondent police investigated the case and filed a final report against the petitioners for an offence under Section 306 IPC and the same has been taken cognizance by the Court below.
6. It will be relevant to extract the allegation that has been made against the petitioners in the final report, which is as follows:-
xxx xxx xxx
7. It will also be relevant to extract the statement given by the Decided On : facto complainant before the police which is as follows:-
xxx xxx xxx
8. The point for consideration before this Court is whether the above allegations made in the final report and the statement given by the Decided On : facto complainant, will constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC.
9. It will be relevant to consider two judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the facts which are almost similar to the present case.
10. The first judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48. The relevant portions are extracted here under:-
9. The prosecution stand is that the abovementioned letters would disclose the feelings and sufferings of an unfortunate wife having come to know of the love affair between her husband A-1 and his colleague A-2, which ultimately led her to commit the act of suicide.
13. Alienation of affection by a stranger, if proved, is an intentional tort i.e. interference in the marital relationship with intent to alienate one spouse from the other. Alienation of affection is known as "Heart Balm" action. Anglo-Saxon common law on alienation of affection has not much roots in this country, the law is still in its nascent stage. Anglo- Saxon based action against third parties involving tortuous interference with the marital relationship was mainly compensatory in nature which was earlier available to the husband, but, of late, a wife could also lay such a claim complaining of alie
