SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Veeralakshmi vs The Inspector Of Police on 1 April, 2019



DATED: 01.04.2019



Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6371 of 2014
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014
4.Elangovan … Petitioners


1.The Inspector of Police
K.Pudhur Police Station
Crime No.972/2009


3.K.Maheswari … Respondents
[R3 impleaded as per the order
of the Court made in Crl.M.P.
(MD) No.11409 of 2016, dated

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records

relating with the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.13/2014 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate No.6, Madurai and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Surianarayanan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.S.Vellaichamy for R2
Mr.S.Alagusundar for R3


Veeralakshmi (A1) got married to Balasubramanian (deceased) on

13.12.2007 and after marriage, they lived together for about four months in

the matrimonial home. Veeralakshmi conceived and so, she went to her natal

home for delivery. A girl child was born to her on 07.10.2008 and after that,

she refused to join her husband Balasubramanian. Balasubramanian made

several attempts, through mediators, to make Veeralakshmi join him, but to

no avail. According to Balasubramanian, Veeralakshmi has a very sharp

tongue and she caused hurt to him several times by stinging words.

Therefore, on 28.02.2009, he attempted to commit suicide by consuming

sleeping pills mixed in kerosene oil. However, his relatives, who came to know

of it, took him to the hospital and saved his life. After recovery,

Balasubramanian filed H.M.O.P.No.283 of 2009, before the Family Court,

Madurai, for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

2. It appears that Balasubramanian was working as Junior

Assistant in the Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board and for some reasons, which

were not known to either the prosecution or the defence, he was suspended

from service. While that being so, Balasubramanian wrote a suicide note

dated 20.08.2009 and sent copies of it to the Commissioner of Police,

Madurai, his employer and his grandmother and kept one copy of it in his

pocket. On the same day, he consumed Endosulfan and came to

Veeralakshmi’s house about 10.30 p.m. and fell down. Seeing his condition,

Balan (A2), father of Veeralakshmi, called 108 Ambulance and took him to the

Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where he was admitted as inpatient.

However, he died on the next day. On the complaint lodged by Rajalakshmi,

grandmother of Balasubramanian, the Police registered a case in Crime No.

972 of 2009, on 21.08.2009, under Section 174 Cr.P.C. After performing

postmortem and recording statements of witnesses, the case was altered to

one under Section 306 I.P.C. The postmortem report shows that

Balasubramanian had consumed Endosulfan, which had caused his death.

After completing the investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet in

P.R.C.No.13 of 2014, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai,

against Veeralakshmi (A1 – wife of the deceased), Balan (A2 – father of

Veeralakshmi), Sundari (A3 – Mother of Veeralakshmi) and Elangovan (A4 –

brother of Veeralakshmi), for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.,

challenging which, this quash application has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. Since Rajalakshmi, who gave the complaint which formed the

basis for the registration of the F.I.R., had died, her relatives, namely,

Balakupentharan and Maheswari have been impleaded as respondents 2 and


5. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the present

prosecution is clearly an abuse of process of law, because, even in the divorce

application in H.M.O.P.No.283 of 2009, Balasubramanian has not stated

about the allegations that are now being levelled against the accused through

the Police statements of his relatives.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent

submitted that even in the divorce application, Balasubramanian has alleged

about the acts of cruelty against his wife and even in the suicide note, he has

clearly stated that he is committing suicide, because of the cruelty meted out

to him by his wife and her family members. He further contended that the

validity of the suicide note cannot be gone into in a quash application. He

further submitted that in the Police statements of the witnesses, they have

stated that Veeralakshmi (A1) had a love affair with someone prior to the

marriage and therefore, she was refusing to join Balasubramanian. He further

submitted that the suicide note of Balasubramanian has to be treated as dying

declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also supported the

contentions raised by the learned counsel for the third respondent and

submitted that the prosecution should not be quashed at the threshold and

an opportunity should be given to the prosecution to establish the allegations.

8. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival


9. It is true that a criminal prosecution should not be quashed as a

matter of routine at the threshold, unless the circumstances so warrant. The

Judgments of the Supreme Court on this point are a legion and therefore, it

may not be necessary to refer to them. In this case, it is an admitted fact that

Veeralakshmi (A1) went to her natal home for delivery and after the delivery on

07.10.2008, she did not join Balasubramanian. Balasubramanian himself has

admitted in Paragraph No.7 of the divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.283 of 2009

filed by him that, on 28.02.2009, he attempted to commit suicide, because,

Veeralakshmi (A1) refused to join him even eight months after the child was

born and whenever he went to meet her, she humiliated him. However, in the

divorce petition, there is absolutely no whisper about the alleged love affair of

Veeralakshmi (A1) with someone prior to marriage. There is also no reference

in the divorce petition that Veeralakshmi (A1) was demanding some

immovable properties from the deceased as a pre-condition for rejoining.

Except the vague allegation that Veeralakshmi (A1) insulted

Balasubramanian, whenever he approached her for rejoining, there is no other

allegation of cruelty against her in the divorce petition. On the contrary, the

fact that Balasubramanian attempted to commit suicide earlier on

28.02.2009, which he himself had disclosed in Paragraph No.7 of the divorce

petition, clearly shows that he was an emotional person and he was finding it

hard to face the ups and downs of life.

10. Now, coming to the suicide note dated 20.08.2009, the English

translation of the same is as under:

“I am working as Junior Assistant in the Madurai District Ex-

Servicemen Welfare Board. On account of vindictiveness, Major
Prasad, Assistant Director of the Board, placed me under
suspension, on account of which, I am heartbroken. My wife
Veeralakshmi, her father Balan, mother Sundari and Sumathi have
instigated their relative one Elangovan, Inspector of Police, to kill
me. My wife’s family members are harassing me. Therefore, I am
heartbroken. I am committing suicide only because of these

persons. These persons should be adequately punished and my
properties should not be given to any of them. My death is not
natural, but on account of instigation of these persons.”

11. A reading of the suicide note shows that Balasubramanian faced

trouble not only in the family, but also in his office. He has implicated Major

Prasad, Assistant Director of the Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board, who had

placed him under suspension, along with his wife and family members. In the

suicide note also, he has not stated that his wife was having love affair with

someone prior to marriage or that she was demanding some immovable

properties from him. Except vaguely saying that his wife and her family

members had instigated him, he has not stated the manner of instigation. For

mulcting criminal liability under Section 306 I.P.C., the allegations must pass

muster the requirements of Section 107 I.P.C. If the prosecution wants to rely

upon the suicide note, they cannot selectively implicate Veeralakshmi (A1) and

her family members and leave out Major Prasad. The Police statements of the

witnesses are to the effect that Veeralakshmi (A1) lodged a complaint against

Balasubramanian in S.S.Colony Police Station and that is why, he was

depressed. There is absolutely no material to show that Veeralakshmi (A1)

gave complaint in S.S.Colony Police Station as alleged by the witnesses in

their Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements. Even assuming for a moment that

Veeralakshmi (A1) has lodged a police complaint in S.S.Colony Police Station,

that only shows that she has taken recourse to legal process, which cannot be

a good reason for Balasubramanian to commit suicide.

12. As regards the submission that the suicide note of

Balasubramanian has to be treated as dying declaration under Section 32(1)

of the Evidence Act, in the opinion of this Court, even if the suicide note is

treated as a dying declaration, it does not contain the necessary ingredients of

abetment to fasten criminal liability under Section 306 I.P.C. It is dangerous

to implicate people based on suicide notes of weak willed persons, without

anything more. A litigant who loses a case can commit suicide after leaving a

suicide note saying that he is committing suicide because he lost the case as it

was mishandled by his lawyer. Can the lawyer be implicated under Section

306 I.P.C? Fortunately, Judges are protected by the Judges (Protection) Act,

1985. Otherwise, they also would not be spared. Today, it has become a

pernicious habit to blackmail another with threat of suicide. In this case also,

Major Prasad, who had placed Balasubramanian under suspension, must

have rued out of fear on learning that his name figures in the suicide note.

13. Under such circumstances, the prosecution of Veeralakshmi (A1)

and her family members under Section 306 I.P.C. is an abuse of process of law

and the same deserves to be quashed.

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

proceedings in P.R.C.No.13 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, against the petitioners herein, are hereby quashed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No



1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI,

2.The Inspector of Police,
K.Pudhur Police Station,

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,



Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6371 of 2014
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation