KOMMALAPATI ANJANEYULU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S.C.No154 of 2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Medchal.

(2.) The petitioner is accused of commission of offence under Sec. 498-A and 306 of IPC. The case against the petitioner is that the marriage of this petitioner with the deceased took place on 6/11/2011. Both the deceased and the petitioner were divorcees. At the time of the marriage, the parents of the deceased gave cash of Rs.4.5 lakhs, Rs.6.00 lakhs worth gold and 4.00 acres of land to the deceased. It is alleged that the petitioner harassed the deceased mentally and physically to transfer the agriculture land in the name of the deceased in his name. On 29/1/2012, the petitioner beat the deceased, causing bleeding injury and she underwent medical treatment. Crime was registered by Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad vide Cr.No.251 of 2013 under Sec. 498-A, 406 IPC and Ss. 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After the deceased approached the Family Court, Hyderabad for divorce vide OP No.170 of 2013, it is alleged that though she was prosecuting her divorce case, on 6/11/2014, unable to bear the harassment of the petitioner, committed suicide. After filing of criminal complaint and divorce proceedings by the deceased, the petitioner went to London and was constantly in touch with the deceased on e-mails and phones and harassed her mentally. Unable to bear the harassment, she committed suicide.

(3.) Smt. Sesha Rajyam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Koteswara Rao Mummaneni, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the alleged harassment, Criminal Complaint was already filed, which was pending. Thereafter, the deceased approached the Family Court, Hyderabad and filed petition for divorce. In the said circumstances, the question of harassment by this petitioner or abetting to commit suicide does not arise. Even according to the complainant, the petitioner was living in London and a bald allegation is made that the petitioner was harassing by emails and telephone calls, which cannot be said to have abetted suicide. In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if the accused asked 'to go and die' and such person was found dead two days later, such utterance did not amount to abetment to suicide and not punishable under Sec. 306 of IPC. She also relied on the judgment in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 427 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing abetment under Sec. 107 of IPC held that a person must have played an active role by act of instigation or by doing certain act of facilitating the commission of suicide. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered several judgments and held that active instigation forms the ingredient to attract an offence under Sec. 306 of IPC.