THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC No.25 of 2023 against the petitioner-accused No.2 on the file of the I-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani at Peddapalli District, for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Goverdhan Venu, learned counsel representing M/s. Nomos Vistas, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is facing false allegations and that she has never abetted the deceased to commit suicide and that she never interacted with the deceased and thus, the petitioner has never harassed him in any manner to constitute any offence much less the offence under Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the contents of the complaint are perused, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC do not get attracted as there is no interaction between the petitioner and the deceased. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the contents of the complaint point out that the petitioner herein and few others have got the complaint lodged by one Sunitha against the deceased with the allegations under Sections 366, 342, 506 and 509 IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act (for short ‘IT Act’), which was registered as Crime No.91 of 2018. He further submitted that a suicide note was found in the shirt pocket of the deceased mentioning that one Lingam Rajaiah and the petitioner herein, who is the daughter of Lingam Rajaiah, are responsible for his suicide and that petitioner herein should be removed from her post. He therefore, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

5. Perused the record.

6. A perusal of the record discloses that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the de facto complainant alleged that just because of the false complaint levelled against his deceased son Vijaypal Reddy, his son was very much worried and thus, committed suicide. A perusal of the said complaint reveals that it was lodged by one A. Sunitha stating that the deceased Vijaypal Reddy used to insist her to develop intimacy and that he forced her to marry him and when she has not consented, he started posting objectionable photographs on WhatsApp and that unbearable with the said harassment, she left the job at JNTU. Even after she left the job, he called her and sent abusive messages and edited her nude photos and posted in the WhatsApp group. When she learnt about the same through her co-employees, she called him and informed that she is going to complain against him. Then, he blackmailed her and forced her to meet him and when she met him, he took her to Hanuman Temple and forcibly tied Mangalasutra and took a photo by saying that in order to cover the nude photo, he would post the married photo and thereafter, he has also taken her to his house. It is further alleged in the said complaint that when his father came home, she learnt that he is already a married person and is having a kid and knowing that, she removed the mangalasutra, thrown it there and left that place. Then, not able to withstand the said trauma, she has sent a message to her cousin sister and to her co-employees about her intention to commit suicide and consumed tablets, after which she became unconscious for some time, but she could recover. On seeing her message, her cousin sister called her and asked her to come down to Hyderabad as her parents were not there and she was consoled by the family members. She also informed the same to her mother and thus, she requested to take action against Vijaypal Reddy. These set of allegations are levelled against Vijaypal Reddy by Sunitha.

7. In the present case, it is the contention of the de facto complainant that his son Vijaypal Red