JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in P.R.C.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner.)

1. This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur against the petitioner/2nd accused for the offence punishable under Section 305 of I.P.C.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that the deceased Divya aged about 18 years was studying in the college known as Vel Tech. The present petitioner/A2 was working in the above college as Assistant Professor and A1 was working as Computer Operator and also working as Warden. Both of them were stayed in the same hostel. On 18.3.2014 at about 7.00 p.m. during study hours when using of cellphones were prohibited, A1 found the deceased speaking over cellphone outside the hostel. Immediately A1 received the cell phone from the deceased and removed the sim card and did not hand over the cellphone to the student, informed that she will handover the same to the Chief Warden viz., A2. Thereafter, A1 handed over the cell phone to A2. On seeing some obsene messages exchanged by the deceased A2 the Petitioner herein appears to have stated the following words:

“TAMIL”

The deceased thereafter committed suicide in the hostel on 19.3.2014.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that it is a unfortunate incident where the student has committed suicide on her own, particularly when she was found using the cell phone during prohibited hours. As the warden found some obscene messages in the cell phone the deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, it is his contention that due to the unrest among the students the case has been foisted against the petitioner who has arrayed as 2nd Accused and the other accused A1 is not before this Court.

4. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the entire prosecution materials collected in final report even taken in face value, the same will not constitute an offence of abetting, under section 305 I.P.C. The entire allegations unearthed against the Petitioner from the statements of the witnesses clearly show that the deceased in fact had affairs with one Gopinath. The entire allegations targeted against the petitioner is that on seeing some obscene messages in the cell phone seized from the deceased the Petitioner stated that, “what is the point in studying here. Instead of you go and die.” Except that there is no allegation unearthed from the Petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that due to the arrest the Petitioner was suspended and she lost her job and during the Covid both husband and wife infected with Covid and husband died in the hospital, she not even seen and performed his last rites and rituals. At any event it is his contention that the entire offence has not been made out. Therefore, it is the fit case for the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to quash the final report. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

1. M.Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [(2011) 3 SCC 626]

2. Sonti Rama Krishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and another [(2009) 1 SCC 554]

3. Kishori Lal Vs. State of M.P. [(2007) 10 SCC 797]

4. Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371]

5. Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others Vs. R.S.Nayak and another [(1992) 1 SCC 225]

6. R.K.Ramasamy Vs. State rep. by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016) in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 25.08.2021.

7. R.Marimuthu Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police (Crl.O.P.No.16295 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10071 and 10072 of 2017) in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 25.07.2019.

8. Jayanthi and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police [(2017)