ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in P.R.C.No.58 of 2021 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the defacto complainant-2nd respondent lodged a complaint on 26.03.2021 stating that he has taken loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from one Lingam who is the brother-in-law of accused No.1. The 2nd respondent has returned the said amount with interest in the presence of two elders, but the accused did not return the document. It is also alleged that even after payment of debt, the Accused No.1 used to harass his wife physically and mentally for return of the remaining debt amount. Unable to bear the said harassment, the wife of 2nd respondent consumed pesticide on 25.03.2021 and later died. As such, the 2nd respondent requested the police to take action. Basing on the said complaint the police registered Cr.No.95 of 2021 and later filed charge sheet.

3. Heard Sri SSR Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Though notice is served on the 2nd respondent, none appeared on his behalf.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the allegations in the complaint are against accused No.1 only, during the course of investigation, the police implicated accused Nos.2 and 3 on the ground that they lent the amount along with A.1 and also harassed the victim. He further submitted that there is no allegation against these petitioners in the FIR and due to animosity, the 2nd respondent and other witnesses, added their names. Petitioners herein are innocents and they are falsely implicated in this crime. The said complaint was made with malafide intention and with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance against the petitioners. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Vs State of A.P., and another1, Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan Vs Ram Gopal Poddar and another2 and Preeti Gupta and another Vs State of Jharkhand and another3 and State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and Others4, S.W.Palanitkar Vs State of Bihar5, Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. Vs Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another6 and Om Prakash and Others Vs State of Jharkhand7. Hence, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. He would submit that though the names of petitioners is not mentioned in the complaint, the statements of witnesses clearly shows that these petitioners also harassed the 2nd respondent and his family members for repayment of loan, that too after receiving the amount, and have not returned the document. As such, the wife of 2nd respondent committed

1 Crl.A.No.1305 of 2013

2 2010 (11) Scale 59 3 (2010) 7 SCC 667 4 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 (2000) 4 SCC 168 6 (2005) 1 SCC 122 7 2012 (12) SCC 72 suicide and it is the matter which requires trial. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss this criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the parties and also the material on record, it is seen that the allegations against the petitioners are that they are money lenders, lent amount to the 2nd respondent and thereafter harassed the 2nd respondent and his family members for repayment of the same. Originally, in the complaint the 2nd respondent stated that A.1 harassed his wife Vanaja mentally and sexually. As such, she committed suicide by consuming pesticide, whereas in Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of the 2nd respondent and other witnesses, they improved their version stating that A.1 is the mediator between 2nd respondent and the peti