THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8087 of 2022

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in P.R.C.No.21 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. Anuganti Praneeth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. There is no representation for respondent No.2-

de facto complainant. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner and deceased are in relationship since five years and both of them intended to marry. However, as accused No.1, who is the father of the petitioner, insulted and mentally harassed the deceased over phone calls stating that he had no Government job, the deceased, feeling insulted and vexed on his life, committed suicide by hanging.

4. Basing on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, who is the father of the deceased, the Police registered a case in Crime No.204 of 2019 for the offence under Section 306 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, for the aforesaid offence and the same was numbered as P.R.C.No.21 of 2019. The P.R.C. was committed to the Sessions Court on 30.09.2019, however the same has not been numbered till date, as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner:

5.1. The petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, with an intention to harass her. In the entire complaint or charge sheet, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner to prove that she has abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The statements of witnesses do not show any proximity or nexus between the petitioner’s conduct and the suicide committed by the deceased. Hence, the basic ingredients of Sections 107 and 306 of IPC are not made out against the petitioner. Even if the allegation of disapproving for the marriage is taken to be true, it does not amount to offence under Section 306 of IPC. There is no suicide note, to the best of the petitioner’s knowledge, indicating any role played by her in the deceased’s suicide. Most of the witnesses are family members and friends of the de facto complainant and they are interested witnesses.

5.2. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Shenbagavalli and others v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 987 and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.9 and 17, wherein, it is held as follows:

9. There is nothing on record to indicate that, on the date of the unfortunate incident or any time in close proximity thereof there was any act of instigation on the part of the Appellants. On this basis, it is contended that the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfilled, as there appears to be no provocation or instigative act in close temporal proximity to the incident. The language employed in the suicide note does not reflect any direct inducement that left the deceased with no other recourse but to take such an extreme step. Even assuming that the notes were authored by the deceased, a reading of their contents suggests that the deceased may have been emotionally sensitive and possibly reacted with disproportionate gravity to the events in question. While the remark allegedly made—questioning the manhood of the deceased could be hurtful and may affect a person’s dignity but it cannot, in itself and especially after a gap of nearly a month between the incident an