M.MANOHARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition in Crl.O.P.No.22111 of 2015 has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.221 of 2015, registered for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, on the file of the first respondent.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No. 22111 of 2015 submitted that the second respondent lodged complaint that his son died hanging himself at his resident on 11.03.2015. The deceased was under the care of the petitioner, since he was studying law course in the School of Excellence, Chennai. During the period of his study, the deceased was mingled with the petitioner's family as one of the family member. After completion of his studies, he enrolled as an advocate and he was living at Oorapakkam in a flat purchased by his father, the second respondent herein. While being so, the petitioner used to engage the deceased for the cases and the petitioner found that the deceased neglected the case entrusted to him. On 11.03.2015, through his new Advocate contacted the deceased to hand over the bundle to the new counsel. However, the deceased refused to hand over the bundle and replied that the petitioner should talk to him. On the date itself, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself. 2.1. He further submitted that the entire complaint does not disclose any offence as against the petitioner and the petitioner did not instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the caneta of judgements as follows :- (i) 2015(9) SCC 639 - State of Kerala Vs. S.Unnikrishnan Nair (ii) 2017(1) SCC 483 - Gurcharan Sigh Vs. State of Punjab (iii) 2018(7) SCC 781 - Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke

(3.) Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent filed counter and submitted that on 11.03.2015, when the deceased was in work at his office, the petitioner called him over phone and spoke to him for more than 25 minutes. Without any reasons, the petitioner abused him as if, the deceased cheated him by getting lump sum amount as fees and trashed him to the core by using filthy language for not visiting him. Further he submitted that the petitioner has used inhuman, scandalous words abusing his mother and the same let the deceased into depression and became broken hearted. Therefore, the deceased extremely upset by the language used by the petitioner and immediately rushed to his house and committed suicide. Further he submitted that only it is a FIR stage, and it cannot be quashed on its threshold. When there is specific avernments to make out the case for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, it cannot be quashed. He further submitted that, the deceased also sent message to his colleague and friends through his mobile about the systematic harassment and as such he committed suicide. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.