Telangana High Court
Gundlapally Aishwarya , Anjali vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 29 July, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8087 of 2022
ORDER:
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
2
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.
3
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 1 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 and the suicide,
it cannot be construed as a sufficient provocation that would
impel an ordinary, reasonable person to take such an
irrevocable step.
17. These being the essential ingredients for the offence
of abetment to suicide, and the said ingredients having not
been fulfilled, the further continuation of proceedings would
not be sustainable. The other evidence such as statements,
sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, apart from the
suicide note, does not in any manner advance the case of
the prosecution, particularly when the foundation of the case
is the suicide note itself. With the very element of abetment
conspicuously absent from the allegations made in the FIR
which is primarily based upon the suicide note, the essential
requirements for constituting an offence under Section 306
IPC remain unfulfilled. As such, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants would
amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court cannot
permit such proceedings to degenerate into instruments of
harassment or unjust prosecution.
5.3. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 987
4
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
contended that the petitioner had refused to marry the deceased on the
ground that he had no Government job, and, being unable to bear the
same, the deceased committed suicide. It is further contended that all the
allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are
subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the
proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the
petition.
7. It is apposite to extract Sections 107 and 306 of IPC, for proper
adjudication of the matter, and the same reads as follows:
“Section 107 IPC: Abetment of a thing.– A person abets
the doing of a thing, who–
First.–Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.–
Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.–Intentionally aids,
by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.–A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or
by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.–Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
Section 306 IPC: 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.”
5
8. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal
and others 2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
The following categories of cases can be stated by way of
illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused;
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused;
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without
an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code;
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific2
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
6provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
9. On a perusal of the allegations made in complaint, statements of
the witnesses and charge sheet, even if they are taken on face value,
prima facie, no substantial and specific allegations have been made
against the petitioner, except stating that she denied marrying the
deceased as he had no Government job. As seen from the complaint and
charge sheet, not even a single specific overt act was attributed to the
petitioner.
10. Having gone through the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of de facto
complainant and LW-2/M.Suguna, who are the parents of deceased, they
disclose that on 17.06.2019, the deceased informed the petitioner that he
is about to commit suicide and as the petitioner did not stop him, the
deceased committed suicide on 20.06.2019. If the de facto complainant
and LW-2 had known about their son/deceased is about to commit
suicide, they ought to have intervened and stopped him, instead of
making allegations against the petitioner.
11. As per the statement of LW-4/B.Sheshi Kumar, who is the friend of
the deceased, the deceased had invited him to his farm house for a party
on the night of 19.06.2019. On the morning of 20.06.2019, at 06.00 a.m.,
7
LW-2 left to Vikarabad and when he reached home at 07.30 a.m., he
came to know that the deceased committed suicide. However, there is no
mention in his statement stating that the deceased had shared anything
about the petitioner refusing to marry the deceased. Hence, it is clearly
evident that there is no proximate link between the petitioner’s refusal to
marry the deceased and the commission of suicide. The petitioner has
not played any active role, nor has she committed any positive or direct
act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. There are no
specific allegations against the petitioner suggesting that her conduct left
the deceased with no alternative, but to commit the unfortunate act of
suicide. Furthermore, no suicide note was found or written by the
deceased implicating the petitioner, which could establish her guilt.
12. Apart from that, neither the statement of the de facto complainant
nor those of other witnesses do not indicate any kind of instigation or
conduct on the part of the petitioner that could be construed as abetment
to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Assuming that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner are true, mere denial to
marriage does not amount to abetment or instigation to commit suicide.
The prosecution has failed to collect any incriminating material or
credible evidence to substantiate the allegations levelled against the
petitioner. Mental distress caused by relationship issues, without
evidence of direct instigation, does not amount to abetment.
8
13. Having regard to the anxious consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the present case and in view of the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioner amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law, and
hence, the proceedings against her are liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings
against the petitioner-accused No.2 in P.R.C.No.21 of 2019 on the file of
the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Senior Civil Judge at
Vikarabad and consequent proceedings arising thereof, stands quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 29.07.2025
rev