Mere harsh words or disputes over property do not fulfill the legal requirements for abetment of suicide under IPC Sections 306 and 107.

ORDER:

J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 768 of 2023 on the file of the Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District (presently Jangaon District), wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 4 for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

2. Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Jalli Narendar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.11.2023, the police at Jangoan received a complaint from the respondent No.2 regarding a dispute with his agnates, including accused No.1 and others, over agricultural land. On 25.11.2023, both parties and their representatives met at the agricultural fields to resolve the dispute. The petitioner, representing the opponents, allegedly scolded the respondent No.2 and his family. During the meeting, the deceased (younger son of respondent No.2) demanded fair resolution, to which the petitioner allegedly replied that not even an inch of land would be given. Feeling hurt, the deceased later went to Cheetakoduru Dam and consumed pesticide. Despite being shifted to hospitals in Jangoan and Warangal, he succumbed to the injuries. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against his agnates, including the petitioner. Basing on the same, the present complaint has been filed.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime solely on the ground that he acted as a mediator between the defacto complainant and accused Nos. 1 to 3 in resolving property disputes relating to agricultural land. The petitioner never instigated the deceased to commit suicide, nor is there any act of abetment attributable to him.

5. He further submitted that the defacto complainant implicated the petitioner as an accused only to resolve the civil disputes pending between him and accused Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 2 has made omnibus allegations against the petitioner, which do not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC. Hence, continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner is clear abuse of process of law.

6. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayyub and others v. State of UP , [(2025) 3 SCC 334] and M.Mohan v. State , [(2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 626].

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently contended that the petitioner abused the deceased, and at the instance of the petitioner and other accused, the deceased committed suicide. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner which attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not is a matter to be determined during the course of investigation, and the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at the stage of the crime. Therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

9. Having considered the ri