ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in PRC No.30 of 2022 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the sister of the 2nd respondent committed suicide by swallowing four or five types of different tablets. The 2nd respondent lodged the complaint stating that the reason for her committing suicide was not known and there is no suspicion about anybody regarding the death.

3. The police, during the course of investigation, on examination of witnesses L.Ws.4 and 5, who are the friends of the deceased, found that this petitioner and the deceased were friends and lovers since ten years. This petitioner had promised the deceased that he would marry her and they were in relation over the said period. However, the petitioner had cheated the deceased and after going around with her for ten years, he got engaged with another girl and got married. Unable to bear the said trauma of the petitioner marrying another woman by cheating the deceased, the deceased committed suicide. The police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 417, 420 and 306 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the entire complaint there is no mention about this petitioner. Further, even considering the investigation done by the police, no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 2021 SC 4764, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that to constitute an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC, there must be an allegation either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased would not be sufficient to convict a person. If a person is committing suicide on account of hyper sensitivity and allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. However, the Court also observed that every case on facts has to be decided.

5. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in Patnam Subramanyam v. Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Criminal Petition No.6456 of 2016, dated 21.01.2022. It was observed that false promise of marriage should have a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in sexual act when they are in relation for a period of ten years. The contention that the girl engaged in sexual act with the accused on the promise of marriage gets diluted. Continuous relation itself would go to show that it was consensual affair and not arising out of misconception of fact out of a promise to marry.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations are serious in nature and only trial can determine whether the petitioner is responsible or not for the suicide of the deceased.

7. In the present case, according to the witnesses, petitioner and the deceased were on long term relation as friends and also on the basis of petitioner’s promise to marry the deceased. The witnesses who are friends of the deceased stated that the deceased and the petitioner herein used to go around to various places and ultimately she was depressed on account of the petitioner marrying someone else by cheating the deceased.

8. Different persons react to a situation in a different manner. Long term relationship of ten years between the deceased and the petitioner and ultimately, petitioner leaving the deceased and marrying another woman even without her knowledge appears to be the reason, according to the investigation, for her suicide. The evidence is circumstantial in nature. It is for the prosecution to adduce evidence regarding the inci