Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Srinivasan – Petitioner
Versus
State rep. by: The Inspector of Police, Pallapatty Police Station, Salem. & Ors. – Respondents
Crl.O.P.No.24800 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2014 and 10706 of 2019
Decided On : 26-08-2019
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 498 A - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 – Quash - Committing suicide - Case of prosecution is that deceased was given IN marriage to petitioner - Through wedlock a female child was born and petitioner is said to be working as a Junior Assistant in City Police Office at Salem - There seems to be some quarrel between parties with regard to sale of a plot - There was also regular quarrel between petitioner and deceased since petitioner was insisting that deceased must go for work and therefore he was her to take job deceased resisted same on ground that there was a child aged and she cannot go for a job deceased contacted her brother and informed him that he should bring the documents pertaining to plot immediately since petitioner was to sell plot - On very same day there was a quarrel between petitioner and deceased –Held, Specific instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to word cruelty as is expressed by legislature whereas explanation involves three specific situations drive woman commit suicide cause grave injury danger life limb health both mental and physical and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity in Explanation there absence of physical injury but legislature thought fit to include only coercive harassment which obviously as legislative intent expressed is equally heinous match physical injury whereas one is patent other one is latent but equally serious in terms of provisions of statute since the same would also embrace attributes of cruelty in terms Court inclined do so but order justify a conviction later provision there must be available on record two inconsistent versions of the brother and cousin as such no credence can be attributed thereon – Documentary evidence those three letters in our view falls there is no contradiction in oral testimony available on record cousin goes to unfortunate girls in-laws place and requests husband to treat her well - at best some torture and a request to treat her well - This by itself would not bring home charge section - Demand for dowry has not seen light of day we find that prosecution witnesses have in their testimonies stated deceased was tortured both physically and mentally by appellant for first time after his marriage with deceased when he was refused permission for marriage with said by deceased - On having been refused permission for his second marriage with appellant again after few days requested deceased to accede to his request for marriage with Anita which request was again refused by deceased - Consequent to said position and due to adamant position taken by deceased cruelty was meted out her by accused which is sufficiently proved from evidence on record - Petition allowed
ORDER :
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in PRC.No.6 of 2014, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem, quash the proceedings.
1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.6 of 2014, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was given IN marriage to the petitioner on 22.10.2007. Through the wedlock, a female child was born and the petitioner is said to be working as a Junior Assistant in the City Police Office at Salem. There seems to be some quarrel between the parties with regard to the sale of a plot. There was also regular quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased, since the petitioner was insisting that the deceased must go for work and therefore he was pressurising her to take a job. The deceased resisted the same on the ground that there was a child aged about 1 1/2 years and she cannot go for a job. On 12.05.2012 at about 05.30 p.m., the deceased contacted her brother and informed him that he should bring the documents pertaining to the plot immediately, since the petitioner was pressurising to sell the plot. On the very same day at about 07.15 p.m, there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased and the petitioner is said to have uttered the following words:
Any Other Language
3. Not able to take it any further, the deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging at about 07.30 p.m., on the same day.
4. Based on the complaint given by the father of the deceased, an FIR came to be registered for the offence under Sections 498 A and 306 of IPC, before the respondent police. On the completion of the investigation, a final report was also laid before the Court below and the Court below had taken the report on file in PRC.No.6 of 2014.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the report of the RDO has clearly found that the death was not due to any dowry harassment or family quarrel. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, no offence of suicide has been made out in this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the quarrel that is said to have taken place between the petitioner and the deceased cannot by itself be construed as a mental cruelty and therefore the offence under Section 498 A of IPC is also not made out. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police submitted that there are prima facie materials to frame charges against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 498 A and 306 of IPC. The learned counsel submitted that the case is pending at the committal stage from the year 2014 onwards, without any progress and therefore a time limit can be fixed by this Court for the completion of the proceedings.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent submitted that there was sustained cruelty that was exerted against the deceased, which ultimately culminated in the deceased taking the extreme step of committing suicide on 12.05.2012. The learned counsel submitted that even if the words used by the petitioner by itself may not constitute the offence of abatement to commit suicide, the words spoken by the petitioner was the last straw on the camels back and there was already a sustained cruelty and the final words spoken by the petitioner, made the deceased take the extreme step of committing suicide and therefore, this Court has to take an over all view regarding the various incidents that have been spoken by the witnesses. The learned counsel submitted that even a strong suspicion is enough to frame a charge against the petitioner and there are prima facie materials to constitute an offence both under Sections 498 A and 306 of IPC and there
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
