PADMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the accused to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.470 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the landlord and the deceased Loganathan was the tenant under the petitioner. He further submitted that the deceased Loganathan died under suspicious circumstances on 23.07.2015 and hence, the first respondent has registered the case in Crime No.470 of 2016 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the case was altered into under Section 306 I.P.C stating that the petitioner has abetted the deceased Loganathan to commit suicide. He further submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R would not attract Section 306 I.P.C. He further submited that in the F.I.R., it is stated that since the petitioner herein has insisted the deceased to pay the arrears of rent and also used the obscene words, the deceased consumed pesticide and committed suicide on 20.07.2016 at 5.30 p.m. He further submitted that even assuming that the petitioner has used obscene words and also uttered words " to go and die ", it could not be said that the petitioner has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted that the petitioner has not played any active role or facilitate the commision of suicide and therefore, the Section 306 I.P.C will not attract.

(3.) In support of aforesaid conditions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions: