ORDER:

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in P.R.C.No.28 of 2017 in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. There were six persons arrayed as accused in the complaint in Crime No.118 of 2014 of Chatrai Police Station.

2. The facts leading to the present case are – The 4th accused had given a complaint before the Chatrai Police Station, on 22.07.2014, complaining that a starter board in the mango garden, where he was working as a watchman, was found missing and that the said board was found installed in the field of the deceased. On the basis of the said complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police has caused an enquiry to verify the starter board available in the field of the deceased. On being called, the deceased had come to the police station and had contended that he had purchased the starter board earlier and offered to produce necessary documentation to prove the purchase. Thereafter, the elders of the village are said to have requested the Sub-inspector to leave the matter for being settled within the village itself and on that basis further enquiry was stopped by the sub-inspector of police. However, the deceased has developed the feeling that he was being treated as thief. It appears that three days prior to the death of the deceased, when he went to the milk collection centre to sell his milk, the 6th accused is said to have commented and insulted the deceased by saying that thieves are coming to sell milk and people who drink such milk would die. On 27.07.2014, the deceased is said to have committed suicide by consuming poison in his house by leaving a suicide note stating that accused Nos.1 to 6 are responsible for his death as he was suspected in the theft of meter board of the 4th accused. Upon demise of the deceased, a case under section 174 of I.P.C. was registered. Subsequently, the other provisions were added after the son of the deceased, who is the de facto complainant, had filed a complaint and the same was registered as Crime No.118 of 2014 of Chatrai Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused No.4 and accused No.6, while accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 were deleted from the array of accused in the charge sheet. However, the Magistrate took cognizance against all the accused and issued process. It may also be noted that accused No.6 has passed away.

4. Aggrieved by the said issue of process in P.R.C.No.28 of

2017, accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed the present criminal petition to quash the case against them.

5. The petitioners had, initially, filed Crl.P.No.3654 of 2018 challenging the docket order dated 03.11.2017. Subsequently, the said criminal petition was withdrawn on 27.04.2022.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y.N.

Anjaneyacharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that neither the suicide note nor the statement recorded in the course of investigation or the charge sheet, bring home any allegations which would make out an offence under Sections 107 and 306 IPC. The learned Senior Counsel relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P.,1; Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,2, and Bikash Ranjan Rout vs. State Through the Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi3

7. Notice has been served on the de facto complainant/2nd respondent. However, there is no representation for the 2nd respondent.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor relying upon Mahendra K.C.

vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.,4 would contend that the Magistrate, would have the discretion to order fresh investigation in the matter. 9. The contours of offence under Sections 107 and 306 IPC have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., and Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh