The absence of proximate cause and intention to abet suicide under Section 306 IPC necessitates quashing charges.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the accused persons in P.R.C.No.

11 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Athoor seeking to quash the charge sheet wherein the petitioners are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 306 of I.P.C

2.A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the husband of the defacto complainant and the petitioners herein were running a joint business of undertaking construction work. The accused persons are alleged to have insisted the husband of the defacto complainant to repay the loan. On 19.07.2022, the accused persons are said to have come to the house of the deceased and threatened him to pay the balance amount. It is alleged that they have uttered “ in case if he is not able to repay the money, why do you alive, go and die”. Thereafter, the defacto complainant's husband is said to have committed suicide at about 6.00 p.m on 25.07.2022 in a construction site which is not connected to the petitioners.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there was no immediate proximity for the alleged incident dated 19.07.2022 and the death of the defacto complainant's husband on 25.07.2022. That apart, there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to abet the deceased person to commit suicide. They were only insisting for repayment of the money which are borrowed by the defacto complainant's husband. He had also relied upon a decision of this Court inCrl.O.P(MD).No.20781 of 2021 ( Elaikadi Saravanan @ Pushpa Raja Vs. The State , rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District) dated 06.01.2022 wherein this Court was pleased to quash the F.I.R on the ground that the ingredients of Section 306 of I.P.C have not been made after relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the defacto complainant's husband has executed a written suicide note by hand and that reveals that the petitioners have insisted for repayment of the loan and they have uttered obscene words which abetted the defacto complainant's husband to commit suicide.

5.Heard both sides and perused the material records.

6.A careful perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the accused persons are said to have insisted the deceased to repay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which he is said have borrowed from the petitioners. On 19.07.2022, it is alleged that they have uttered obscene words and said that “in case if he is not able to repay the money, why do you alive, go and die”. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide after six days namely 25.07.2022. Therefore, it is clear that there is no proximity between the incident that is said to have taken placed on

19.07.2022 and the date of occurrence namely 25.07.2022.

7.This Court had passed orders in Crl.OP(MD).No.20781 of 2021 dated 06.01.2022 wherein this Court has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos. 8 & 9 are extracted as follows:

“8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner even according to the prosecution case, while the suicide took place on 14.09.2021, the coercive pressure exerted by the petitioner is alleged to have taken place ten days earlier. Thus there was no immediate abetment for committing suicide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision made in Crl.A.No.93 of 2019 dated 18.01.2019 ( Rajesh Vs State of Haryana ) held as follows:

8.Convict