LATHA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the above quash petitions challenging the final report filed against them, which is now pending in S.C.No.112 of 2016 on the file of Mahila Court, Chennai.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.11861 of 2016 is referred to as first accused and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.13487 of 2016 is referred to as second accused.

(3.) The allegation in the final report is that the first accused was running an Educational Consultancy in the name of Blue Chip Services International Private Limited. The defacto complainant is the father of one Lavanya, the deceased. Lavanya approached the company run by the first accused and on the advice of the first accused, applied for UK Visa for admission into a college in London. The first accused instigated and compelled the deceased to apply for the college education. With great difficulty, the said Lavanya had paid Rs.3,60,000.00, to the first accused towards Visa processing charges besides several lakhs towards college fees in London. For the purposes of maintaining a minimum balance in the account, the first accused introduced the second accused who promised to deposit the minimum fund required to prove the financial worth of the candidate which is necessary for the purpose of getting Visa. The second accused accordingly deposited Rs.7,02,000.00 in the account of the deceased Lavanya and her friend Kavitha who had also applied along with the deceased for admission in the College. Immediately after the Visa interview got over, the said second accused withdrew the cash deposited in the account of the deceased Lavanya on 28/4/2011. The United Kingdom Authorities found out that this illegal transaction done by the deceased Lavanya along with the accused herein and rejected the Visa of both the deceased Lavanaya and her friend Kavitha. Unable to bear the financial loss caused due to the rejection of Visa, the deceased Lavanya left a suicide note stating that she had spent huge amounts of money on the instigation of the first accused. Her father had to support four daughters. He had paid for the processing fee and the college education by borrowing money and he was put to hardship and that she was taking the extreme step of committing suicide. In the suicide note, the deceased Lavanya also mentioned that but for the instigation and wrong advice of the first accused, she would not have invested so much money which led to the rejection of her visa and also stated in the suicide note that it would be nice if the first accused returned the money that she had paid towards college fees and for United Kingdom processing fees. On the said allegations, the first accused was charged for the offence under Sec. 306 IPC for the abetment of suicide. The second accused was charged for the offence under Sec. 306 IPC and Sec. 420 IPC. The charge under Sec. 420 IPC was that she promised to help the deceased Lavanya with funds and immediately thereafter withdrew it after the interview which was found by United Kingdom Authorities and led to the rejection of the Visa.