The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the discharge petition, affirming that prima facie evidence existed for abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.

ORDER :

P.Vadamalai, J.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 16.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2024 in S.C.No.235 of 2022 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District and to set aside the same and consequently, discharge the petitioners/accused.

2.The brief facts of the case:

The revision petitioners are Accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.235 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur. Initially, there were four accused in this case. It was alleged that the deceased Ashwini was daughter of the defacto complainant/2^nd respondent and she was given marriage with one Arunachalam, son of Accused No.1, on 14.11.2013 and out of wedlock they have two children named Ananya and Siva Arumugavel. It is further alleged that after few years the husband of the deceased, who was working in Chennai, left his job and came to his native place and since then the deceased was illtreated by the in-laws. So, the deceased left her matrimonial home in the year 2019 and was in depression and she committed suicide on 21.12.2019 along with the suicide note. Based on the complaint along suicide note given by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.686 of 2019 U/s.174(3) of Cr.P.C . and after investigation, charge sheet was laid against the husband of the deceased and the petitioners (as Accused Nos.1 to 4) U/s.306 of IPC and the same was taken on file as P.R.C.No.24 of 2021 by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam. Then the criminal proceedings against the husband of the deceased/Accused No.1 was quashed by this Court as per the order passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.19952 of 2021, dated 22.03.2022 and the case has been proceeded against the petitioners. After furnishing copies to the petitioners/accused the case was committed by the committal Court and the case is now pending as S.C.No.235 of 2022 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur. During the pendency of further proceedings, the petitioners have filed the petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C . in Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2024 in S.C.No.235 of 2022 to discharge them from the case. The respondent police filed a counter objecting the discharge petition. On hearing both sides and after perusing the material records, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur found that there was a prima facie case against the petitioners and dismissed the petition for discharge by order dated 16.11.2024.

3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioners has come forward with this present Criminal Revision Case.

4. The defacto complainant has also been impleaded as second respondent on his petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and also learned counsel for the second respondent. Perused the records in this Criminal Revision Case.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has argued at length and also submitted written arguments. The learned counsel mainly argued that the alleged charge is abetment to suicide U/s.306 of IPC against the petitioners. There is no offence of any nature made out against the petitioners. There is no material and there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners. The case of abetment has to be dealt with Section 107 of IPC also. To make out the alleged charge of abetment there should be instigation, participation in the commission of offence, or aiding on the part of the accused to force the deceased to commit suicide. But, in this case, there is no such ingredient available against the petitioners. In the absence of such materials, the alleged offence U/s.306 of IPC is not attracted against the petitioners. The deceased committed suicide in her parental home after 5 months of leaving her matrimonial home as she was in depression. The DRO in his report has clearly stated that