THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3539 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,

praying to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in SC.No.25 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Courts, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, arising out of Crime No.95 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections

306 r/w.34 of IPC before the Shabad Police Station, Cyberabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the defacto complainant-2^nd respondent lodged a complaint on 26.03.2021 stating that he has taken loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the brother-in-law of petitioner/accused No.1. The 2^nd respondent has returned the said amount with interest in the presence of two elders, but the petitioner did not return the document. It is also alleged that even after payment of debt, the petitioner used to harass his wife physically and mentally for return of the remaining debt amount. Unable to bear the said harassment, the wife of 2^nd 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 Ms.Shravya Katta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Though notice is served on the 2^nd respondent, none appeared on his behalf.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint was made with malafide intention and with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance against the petitioner. She asserted that the petitioner is innocent and is falsely implicated in the case. She averred that vide order dated 13.08.2024 passed in Crl.P.No.7185 of 2022 this Court quashed proceedings against other accused and prayed this Court to pass similar order in this Criminal Petition by allowing the same and quashing proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the facts of this case and the facts of the case as relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, i.e., in Crl.P.No.7185 of 2022 are same.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the parties and also the material on record, it is seen that originally, in the complaint the 2^nd respondent stated that petitioner 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 2^nd respondent and other witnesses, they improved their version stating that petitioner is the mediator between 2^nd respondent and the other accused. According to the statement of Lw.1, the deceased stated to him that due to the debts she wants to die. The said statement shows that there is no abatement by this petitioner for the death of deceased. Section 306 of I.P.C, deals with abetment of suicide which reads as under :

306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

7. The ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C, were elucidated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Arjunan Vs State1 wherein it was observed as under :

“7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”

8. Similarly, in Ude Singh Vs S