PRABHAKARA SHETTY AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed by CW1-Surendranath, who is the son of Nalinamma (Hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"). The allegation in the complaint is that, on 22.10.2011, at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioners/accused came near his house and demanded repayment of loan amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and in default, caused threat of getting the house auctioned and also used highly abusive language and thereby caused mental harassment, on account of which, Nalinamma, doused herself with kerosene and ignited and despite she being immediately taken to a hospital at Mysuru, the treatment having not materialized, died at 08.15 p.m., on 25.10.2011. According to the complainant, the petitioners were solely responsible for the suicidal death of his mother and that the accused abetted in his mother committing suicide. It was alleged that, since the deceased was insulted by the petitioners, she felt ashamed and committed suicide and that the overt acts committed by the accused drove the deceased to commit suicide. It was alleged that the intentional instigation and cruel conduct of the petitioners prompted the deceased to commit suicide. A complaint having been lodged on 26.10.2011 at 6.30 a.m., a case in Crime No.428/2011 was registered and the FIR was submitted to the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Gundlupet.

(2.) On completion of investigation, the Police having filed charge sheet against the petitioners, for the offence punishable under S.306 read with S.34 of IPC, cognizance having been taken and C.C.No.428/2011 having been registered and process issued by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Gundlupet, this petition was filed under S.482 Cr.P.C., to quash the entire proceedings of the said case.

(3.) Sri D.S.Hosmath, learned advocate, contended that the complaint is false, frivolous and was lodged belatedly, to avoid the liability and by threatening the petitioners. He submitted that the complainant, in order to blackmail the petitioners and prevent them from recovering the loan amount from his father, lodged the false complaint. He submitted that there being no dying declaration and the petitioners having not gone near the house of the deceased on 22.10.2011, as alleged, in as much as the petitioner No.1 was a cardiac patient and took treatment on 20.10.2011 at Vikram Hospitals Private Limited, Mysuru. He further submitted that the petitioners being respectable members of the society and if are made to face trial, would be put to irreparable loss and mental hardship. He contended that, even if the case of the prosecution is accepted on its face value, still, on the basis of the material brought on record by the prosecution, the offence under S.306 of IPC is not made out. In support of the case of the petitioners, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in SONTI RAMA KRISHNA Vs. SONTI SHANTI SREE AND ANOTHER, 2009 AIR(SC) 923 and contended that there being abuse of process of law by the respondents, interference with the impugned proceedings, in exercise of power under S.482 Cr.P.C., is called for.