M VASUDEVA CHARY Vs. SHO PS KPHB COLONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A2 M. Vasudeva Chary, A3 Thirupathi Reddy and suspect accused-S. Yadava Reddy in Crime No. 165 of 2011 of K.P.H.B Colony Police Station, Cyberabad, to quash the proceeding therein.

(2.) SMT . Akurathi Jhansi Rani-2nd respondent lodged a report with the Inspector of Police, K.P.H.B. Colony Police Station, Cyberabad, alleging, inter alia, that her husband-Akurathi Panakalu along with Vasudeva Chary @ Vasu (1st petitioner herein) and Jayaram established Pravah Laboratories Private Limited, a bulk drug company at Vangapally Village, near Yadagirigutta. Thereafter, Tirupathi Reddy @ TPR (2nd petitioner herein) joined as a partner. Since six months, Vasudeva Chary and Tirupathi Reddy have been threatening her husband to quit as Chairman of the Company. She is also a Director in the Company. On 24.2.2011 her husband has been humiliated and forced to quit the Company in the Board meeting held in Swagath Hotel, Kukatpally. Her husband, being not able to withstand their threats and humiliations, committed suicide at about 4.00 p.m. on 25.2.2011 by hanging himself to a ceiling fan with a nylon thread leaving behind a suicide note. She requested for appropriate action against the persons referred in the report for driving her husband to commit suicide. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.165 of 2011 for the offence under Section 306 IPG came to be registered against the petitioners 1 and 2 and others. After registering the case, an inquest has been held on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Alia Srinivas Reddy and Chitra Sreenivasa Rao on 26.2.2011 at 10.30 hours. During the course of inquest, the police examined (1) Smt. Akurathi Jhansi Rani @ Jhansi; (2) A. Nik/til Pravah; (3) Kum. Naithika @ Dolly; (4) Sunkara Srinviasa Rao; and (5) Pallampati Sudhakar. Basing on the statements of the witnesses examined during the inquest, the panchas opined that Akurathi Panakalu committed suicide being unable to bear the harassment of the petitioners herein. Col.No.15 of the inquest report, translated version, which finds place at Page No.26 of the material papers, reads as hereunder:

(3.) IT is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant that the role of Yadava Reddy (3rd petitioner herein) as an Accountant will be known only if a full-fledged trial is conducted. For better appreciation, I may refer Para 4 of the counter-affidavit, which reads as hereunder: