1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :26.08.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

Crl.O.P.No.24800 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 of 2014 and 10706 of 2019
Srinivasan … Petitioner

State rep. by:
1.The Inspector of Police,
Pallapatty Police Station,
Salem.
(Crime No.608 of 2012)

2.S.Nagaraj … Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code, praying to call for the records in PRC.No.6 of 2014, on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Salem, quash the proceedings.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.G.Udayashankar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
Mr.P.Jagadeesan for R2

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in

PRC.No.6 of 2014, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Salem.

http://www.judis.nic.in
2

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was given IN marriage to

the petitioner on 22.10.2007. Through the wedlock, a female child was born and

the petitioner is said to be working as a Junior Assistant in the City Police Office at

Salem. There seems to be some quarrel between the parties with regard to the sale

of a plot. There was also regular quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased,

since the petitioner was insisting that the deceased must go for work and therefore

he was pressurising her to take a job. The deceased resisted the same on the

ground that there was a child aged about 1 1/2 years and she cannot go for a job.

On 12.05.2012 at about 05.30 p.m., the deceased contacted her brother and

informed him that he should bring the documents pertaining to the plot immediately,

since the petitioner was pressurising to sell the plot. On the very same day at about

07.15 p.m, there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased and the

petitioner is said to have uttered the following words:

eP goj;j !;Ty; rh;ogpnfl; cd;dhy; ghJfhf;f Koatpy;iy. eP

ntiyf;F ngha; vd;d bra;a nghw. ehd; filf;F ngha;tpl;L

tuj;Jf;Fs;ns rh;l;ogpnfl; ,y;iyd;dh eP vJf;F gpunahrdk;

,y;iy. ePP ,Ue;Jk; xd;Djhd;. ,y;yhk ,Ue;jhYk; xd;Djhd;.

3. Not able to take it any further, the deceased took the extreme step of

committing suicide by hanging at about 07.30 p.m., on the same day.

http://www.judis.nic.in
3

4. Based on the complaint given by the father of the deceased, an FIR came

to be registered for the offence under Sections 498 A and 306 of SectionIPC, before the

respondent police. On the completion of the investigation, a final report was also

laid before the Court below and the Court below had taken the report on file in

PRC.No.6 of 2014.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the report of the

RDO has clearly found that the death was not due to any dowry harassment or family

quarrel. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the case of the

prosecution is taken as it is, no offence of suicide has been made out in this case.

The learned counsel further submitted that the quarrel that is said to have taken

place between the petitioner and the deceased cannot by itself be construed as a

mental cruelty and therefore the offence under Section 498 A of IPC is also not made

out. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks for quashing the proceedings pending

against the petitioner.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

respondent police submitted that there are prima facie materials to frame charges

against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 498 A and 306 of SectionIPC. The

learned counsel submitted that the case is pending at the committal stage from the

http://www.judis.nic.in
4

year 2014 onwards, without any progress and therefore a time limit can be fixed by

this Court for the completion of the proceedings.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent

submitted that there was sustained cruelty that was exerted against the deceased,

which ultimately culminated in the deceased taking the extreme step of committing

suicide on 12.05.2012. The learned counsel submitted that even if the words used

by the petitioner by itself may not constitute the offence of abatement to commit

suicide, the words spoken by the petitioner was the last straw on the camels back

and there was already a sustained cruelty and the final words spoken by the

petitioner, made the deceased take the extreme step of committing suicide and

therefore, this Court has to take an over all view regarding the various incidents that

have been spoken by the witnesses. The learned counsel submitted that even a

strong suspicion is enough to frame a charge against the petitioner and there are

prima facie materials to constitute an offence both under Sections 498 A and 306 of

IPC and therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the proceedings by this Court

in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side

and perused the materials available on record.

http://www.judis.nic.in
5

9. This Court will first consider the submissions made with regard to the

offence under Section 306 of IPC. In order to constitute an offence under Section

306 of IPC, there must be materials to show that the petitioner has aided or abetted

the commission of suicide by the deceased. In order to substantiate the said offence

the mental element on the part of the accused plays a major role. In other words,

the accused must have an intention to instigate the deceased by his words or action,

to push the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. The words,

per se, do not in anyway satisfy the requirements of Sectionsection 107 of IPC. Therefore,

if 107 of SectionIPC is not satisfied, the offence under Section 306 of IPC, cannot be made

out.

10. It is true that in a case, where there is a sustained cruelty/pressure

exerted on the deceased and ultimately after a final word is uttered by the accused,

the deceased takes the extreme step of committing suicide, that will also satisfy the

requirements of abatement under Section 107 of IPC.

11. Even to bring the case under sustained pressure exerted by the husband,

there must be a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate and aid in the

commission of suicide, to establish mens rea to commit abetment.

http://www.judis.nic.in
6

12. In the considered view of this Court, the case of the prosecution even if it

is taken as it is, does not constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC and

therefore this Court is inclined to interfere with the final report insofar as the

offence under Section 306 of IPC, is concerned.

13. This Court is now getting into the next issue to see if any offence under

Section 498 A of IPC, has been prima facie made out. The witnesses, from whom the

statements have been collected by the Investigating Officer, have spoken about

various incidents, where there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the

deceased. Two specific incidents that have been consistently spoken by the

witnesses is that the petitioner was putting pressure on the deceased to sell a

particular property. That apart, the petitioner was also putting pressure on the

deceased to go for a job, inspite of the deceased resisting the same on the ground

that there is a child aged about 1 1/2 years , who has to be taken care by the

deceased.

14. In order to attract the offence under Sectionsection 498 A of IPC, the husband

should have subjected his wife to cruelty. The cruelty is explained under the very

same provision as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive

the woman to commit suicide.

http://www.judis.nic.in
7

15. In the present case, there are prima facie materials available against the

petitioner to the effect that he has subjected the deceased to mental cruelty, which

has gone to the extent of pushing the deceased to take an extreme step of

committing suicide. Therefore, this material is enough for the purpose of framing

charges against the petitioner for an offence under Section 498 A of IPC.

16. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Amalendu pal alias Jhantu Vs State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 1

Supreme Court Cases 707. The relevant portions of the judgment is extracted

hereunder:

”22. After carefully assessing the evidence on
record we find that there is no direct evidence to
show that the appellant had by his acts instigated or
provoked the deceased to commit suicide and has not
done any act which could be said to have facilitated
the commission of suicide by the deceased.”

23. we now intend to proceed to find out
whether a case under Sectionsection 498-A of IPC is made out
against the appellant or not. In Girdhar Shankar
Tawade Vs State of Maharashtra, this Court gave a
succinct enumeration of the object and ingredients of
Section 498-A of IPC when it observed as follows in
paras 3 and 17 SCC pp.180 and 183-84.

http://www.judis.nic.in
8

3. The basic purport of the statutory provision
is to avoid ‘cruelty’ which stands defined by
attributing a specific statutory meaning attached
thereto as noticed hereinbefore. Two specific
instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe
a meaning to the word ‘cruelty’ as is expressed by the
legislature; whereas explanation (a) involves three
specific situations viz.,(i) to drive the woman to
commit suicide, or (ii) to cause grave injury, or (iii)
danger to life, limb or health, both mental and
physical and thus involving a physical torture or
atrocity; in Explanation (b) there is absence of
physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to
include only coercive harassment which obviously as
the legislative intent expressed is equally heinous to
match the physical injury; whereas one is patent, the
other one is latent but equally serious in terms of the
provisions of the statute since the same would also
embrace the attributes of ‘cruelty’ in terms of Section
498-A.

17. As regards the core issue as to whether
charges under Sections 306 and Section498 A of IPC are
independent of each other and acquittal of one does
not lead to acquittal on the other, as noticed earlier,
there appears to be a long catena of cases in

http://www.judis.nic.in
9

affirmation thereto and as such further dilation is not
necessary neither are we inclined to do so, but in
order to justify a conviction under the later provision
there must be available on record two inconsistent
versions of the brother and the cousin, as such no
credence can be attributed thereon – the
documentary evidence (namely, those three letters),
in our view, falls that there is no contradiction in the
oral testimony available on record, the cousin goes to
the unfortunate girl’s in-laws’ place and requests the
husband to treat her well – at best some torture and
a request to treat her well. This by itself would not
bring home the charge under Sectionsection 498-A. Demand
for dowry has not seen the light of day.”

24. From the evidence on record available before
us, we find that the prosecution witnesses have in their
testimonies stated that the deceased was tortured both
physically and mentally by the appellant for the first
time after his marriage with the deceased when he was
refused permission for marriage with said Anitha by the
deceased. On having been refused the permission for his
second marriage with Anitha, the appellant again, after
a few days requested the deceased to accede to his
request for marriage with Anita, which request was again
refused by the deceased. Consequent to the said

http://www.judis.nic.in
10

position and due to the adamant position taken by the
deceased, cruelty was meted out to her by the accused
which fact is sufficiently proved from the evidence on
record. Therefore, we find no reason to take a different
view than what has been taken by the trial court and the
High court asfaras Section 498 A of IPC is concerned.”

17. In view of the availability of prima facie materials against the petitioner

for an offence under Section 498A of IPC, this Court is not inclined to interfere with

the proceedings, insofar as, the offence under Section 498 A of IPC is concerned.

18. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed and the

proceedings in PRC.No.6 of 2014 is quashed, insofar as, the offence under Section

306 of IPC is concerned. The final report, insofar as the Section 498 A of IPC is

sustained. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court

that the case has already been committed before the Mahila Court, Salem and the

same has been taken on file in S.C.No.373 of 2014 and charges have already been

framed. In view of this order, the Mahila Court, Salem, is directed to send the entire

case papers to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem and the

learned Magistrate shall assign a new number to the case and proceed further

against the petitioner for an offence under Section 498 A of IPC by framing

http://www.judis.nic.in
11

necessary charges. The proceedings shall be completed within a period of three

months from the date, on which the charges are framed by the Court below.

consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

22.08.2019

Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ub
Note: Issue order copy on 03.09.2019.

To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Salem.

2.The Inspector of Police,
Pallapatty Police Station,
Salem.

3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in
12

N.ANAND VENKATESH.J

ub

Crl.O.P.No.24800 of 2014

26.08.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in