CRLP/4233/2024 of Pokala Prasanna Komali Vs The State of Telangana on 6 February 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S C.No 3 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Drstrict & Sessions Judge, Miryalguda, registered for the offence under Section 306 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC )

02. Heard Sri IM.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused; Sri tVl. Ramchandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Sri Rapolu Bhasker, learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record

03(a) The respondent No.2-complainan is the father of one Pokala Anand Rao (hereinafter referr :d to as "the deceased") On 05 08.2020, the marriage cll .he deceased was solemnized with the accused No.1 as 1t:r their caste customs and traditions. After the marriage, he deceased and his wife, i e the accused No 1, resided i^ a joint family along wlth the parents of the deceased ancl initially led a cordial conlugal Iife lt is alleged that the accus ed No.1 used to behave disrespectfully towards the dece,i sed and his parents by sitting casually in front of them ancl rot according them due respect. lt is further alleged th rt she spent excessive time usrng her mobile phone for chatting and heglected the deceased. The deceased rs : ated to have complained on several occasions to the Fri trents of the accused No 1 i.e. the accused Nos.2 and 3, "egarding her behaviour, however, the accused Nos.2 an, I 3 allegedly supported and encouraged the accused No.1 03(b). lt is further alleged that on acco I 'lt of the said circumstances, disputes allegedly arose )etween the deceased and the accused No.1 during the lel t two months lili il \ \ ! I_t preceding the incident, and they frequently quarreled even over petty issues. Consequently, the deceased and the accused No.1 separated from the joint family and sta(ed residing in a separate room in the same house lt is alleged that despite such separation, the attitude of the accused No '1 did not change and that she continued to act under the instigation and support of the accused Nos.2 and 3. During the course of quarrels, the accused No 1 is alleged to have abused the deceased and made derogatory remarks against his family members, which caused mental distress to the deceased lt is further stated that the deceased had earlier approached the police regarding such disputes' but the matter was comPromised. 03(c). lt is further alleged that about one week prior to the incident, the accused Nos.2 and 3 came to the house of the deceased, picked up a quarrel with him, and took the accused No. 1 away with them, after which the deceased started living alone in his room. Owing to the alleged harassment by the accused Nos.1 to 3, the deceased is stated to have suffered mental agony and feeling distressed, J //

allegedly wrote a suicide note stating that accrt::d No.1 was not showing respect towards him and his fanr y nrembers, was not interested in leading conjugal life with I im, and was spending more time chatting with her friends c n the phone while neglecting him 03(d) lt is further alleged that on 30' 2020, rn the morning hours, the respondent No 2 along witr his wife and younger son went for agricultural work and rettt ned home at about 6:30 Ptvl. They found that the room of 1 re deceased was locked from inside. The respondent l.l - 2 asked his younger son to knock on the door, but tt ere was no response. On suspicion, they called neighbour; and forcibly opened the door, upon which they found t re deceased hanging from the ceiling fan with a lungi. Thel immediately brought the body down and shifted the to the Government Area Hospital, where the body u,r rs kept in the mortuary. Thereafter, on 24.12.2020 at about 9:00 AM, the younger brother of the deceased informed the :olice that he had found a suicide note allegedly written by' he deceased on the sun side of the house Based on the stt I information, de,; :ased the present case was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC 04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners-accused have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offence lt is contended that there are absolutely no specific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint lodged by respondent No 2. lt is further submitted that, after a lapse of 25 days, the brother of the deceased allegedly found a suicide note in the house, wherein it was stated that the accused No.1 was not giving proper respect to the family members of the deceased and used to sit on a chair in the presence of the elders of the family. lt is further submitted that the police, without conducting a proper and fair investigation, mechanically altered the section of law and arrayed the petitioners as accused persons. There is nothing on record to indicate any instigation, intentional aid, or abetment on the part of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 which could have driven the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. lt is further contended that the charge sheet has been filed without proper investigation and i in the absence of any incriminating mater i I against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the essential ingredients required for constrtuting an offenc;e tnder Section 306 of the IPC are not made out against the p,: itioners 04(b) With the above submissions, leart.,d counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos l to 3 while tr,1 aying for the quashment of criminal proceedings, relied upo a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal and others' wherein it was held at Paragraph Nos.'1 0 to 14 that: "10. ln Prakash and Others v. The Si; re of Maharashtra and Another, this Court has tfther interpreted the offence as below; "13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingrrt isn|r- first, an act of suicide by one person and seccr C, the abetment to the said act by another persoi) s). ln order to susta/n a charge under Secllon 306 -;f the lPC, it must necessarily be proved that the ac:used person has contributed to the suicide by the dec >ased by some direct or indirect act. To prowt such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the lpC as to be satisfied. ' zozs rttsc ao \

14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of lPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well- estabtished To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is impodant to establish proof of direct or inciirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proxmity to the commrsslon of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide." 11 . At this juncture, it is peftinent to refer to cases lhat define the act of instigatton'. Accordingly, in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh' this Courl observed: "20. tnstigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requrement of instigation though it ls not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what consfitufes instigation must necessaily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence- Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capabte of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acls or omtsston or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred A word uftered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actuatty follow cannot be said to be instigation."

12. Reliance is to be placed upon pawan Kt nar v. Stafe of Himachat pradesh, wherein the S t creme Court held: "43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal po:;t I tt1, we are required lo address whether there t e,: been abetntent in committing suicide. Be it cleafll, stated that mere allegation of harassment wi tc t t any positive action in proximity to the time of oc.cL t ence on the part of the accused that led a person to L tmmit suicide. a conviction in terms of Section 3(t( pC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is ltl,ly to cause harassrnent in ordinary course of things ,ill nol come within the purview of instigation. t\ mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not r i rn the status of abetment. There has to be posititr. action that creates a situation for the victim to put at tnd to life."

13. Upon a perusal of several aforementione(1 1 rdicial pronouncements, we find ourse/yes unable to agree with the High Courl and Triat Couti. Ev-. t if att evidence on record, including lhe chargeshtr t and the witness statements, are taken to be correct there rs not an iota of evidence against the Appellat We find that the acts of the Appellant are too remr) ? and indirect to constitute the offense under Secti: t 306 lPC. There is no allegation against the Appetta t of a nature that the deceased was left with no attt,r tative but to commit the unforlunate act of conrt titting suicide.

14. lt is discerned from the record that the Ay,1 eltant along with her family did not attempt to pt , any

pressure on the deceased to end the relationship between her ancl Babu Das. ln fact, it was the deceased's family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the deceased. it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting surcide. Fufther, a remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain the sfafus of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased ls pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC." 05 On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No 2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Courl and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the rnatter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition

06. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to extract Section 306 of lPC, which reads d5

"306. Abetment of suicide. lf any person L:('t lmits suicide, whoever abets the commission ol such suicide. shall be punished with imprisonment o tither description for a term which may extend to tet 1=ars. and shall also be liable to fine."

07. lt is clear that Section 306 of IPC 5 ertains to the offence of abetment of surcide and comprises; two essential ingredients: firstly, that a person has committer, i suicide and secondly, that such suicide was abetted by rr other person through instigation, conspiracy, or intentic,t al aid The existence of a direct or live proximate linl" between the alleged abetment and the act of suicide is a str -5 qua non for attracting this provision 08 ln the context of the present case, it is apposite to refer the decision of the Honourable Supttme Court in R.Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka and ot rers2 wherein at Paragraph Nos.10 to 13 and 1 5 it was helo t at: "1O. lnsofar as the averment in the FIR with re; trd to the offence punishable under Section 306 of . rC ls concerned, it is averred by the appellant-contS i rinant that after her husband had died on 14th April 2(24 by '2ozs tr.rsc +02

committing suicide, while she was checking the betongings of her deceased husband on 18th May 2024, she found a death note wrftten by her husband in his own handwriting. She narrated that after she read the said death note, she came to kttow that her husband has incurred a /oss of Rs.60 crore and was cheated by the paftners of M/s Soundarya Constructions i.e. respondenf Nos.2 attd 3 herein' She has stated in the FIR that respondent Nos' 2 and 3 have given false promises and forged her husband's signature on blank chegues and blank papers and misused the same. She fufther stated that her husband was blackmailed by respondent Nos'2 and 3. She fufther states that her husband used to always be worried about tlrc fraudulent activities of respondent Nos.2 and 3. She fufther states that a week before her husband's death, her husband had been receiving continuous calls from respondent Nos.2 and 3 ancl whenever such call was received, he used to be completely upset and decided to die by committing suicide and wrote the death note' /f ls a/so averred in the FIR that respondent No.4 was also directly involved in the above case.

11. From the allegations taken rrt the FIR at its face value, it can be seen that the case of the appellanl complainant is that even much before her husband died, he used to be blackmailed by respondent Nos 2 and 3. According to her, a week before her husband's death, her husband had been receiving continuous calls from the above persons and whenever he t received such calls, he was completely upsel ut cl hod decided lo commil suicide.

12. lf the version of the appellant-complainant i to be accepted, the question remains as to why s t , kept silent from 14th Apfl 2024 tiil 22nd May 20?_.1 tf her husband was apsef a week before hi:: ]eath. whenever he received calls from responden Nos.2 and 3 and if he was blackmailed by ll t said respondents, then nothing could preve j the appellant-complainant from repofting this n t ,er to the police immediately after the deceased corr nitted suicrde Thus. it is apparent from the matr,t al on record that all these allegations were an aftett c ght. 13- Assunting thal the a egations are trlte even othervvise, the case under Section 306 of lFrC ,tould not be made out. Recen y. this Coud in a: se of Prakash and Others v. Stafe of Maharash,r t and Anotherl in which one of us (Gavai, J., , .as a Member has considered all the earlier judgme,t s with regard to Secilon 306 of lpC. After referring o the earlier judgntents, this Couft has observed thu::. ''31. ln the case of Sanju @ Sanja,, Singh Sengar (supra), this Couri, unde. simtlar circumstances, had quashed th(l chargesheet under Section 306 of trt IPC against the accused-appe ant. t factor that had weighed with the Courl ir the said case was that there was a tinx, gap of 48 hours being the alleged instigation and the commission a, suicide. Ihrs Courl hetd that thr, \ \

deceased was a victim of his own conduct. unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued between him and the appellant. 48 hours Prior to the commission of hts suicide

32. tn the case at hand, taking the allegations in the FIR at face value' the incident at the mahalokadalat had occurred on 17th February' 201 5, while the deceased had committed suicide on 20th March 2015. There is a clear gaP of over a month between the incidertt at the mahalokadatal and the commtssion of suicide. We therefore find that the courls below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the act of suicide by the cleceased was a direct result of the words uttered bY the appellants at the mahalokadalat.

34. . .. . . ..The carclinal princifle of the subject-matter at hand is that there must be a close ProximitY between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of sutcide by the victim. The close proximity should be such as to create a clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide. As uzas held in the case of Sanju @ SaniaY Singh Sengar (supra), if the deceased had taken the :r vlords of the appellants seriously, a timr gap between the two incidents would have given enough time to tht' deceased to think over and reflect otl the rnatter As such. a gap of over ,, rnortth would be sufficient time ltr disso/ye the nexus or the proximate lint: beh,veen the two acts." 1 5. We are, therefore, of the considered vie even taking the allegations at its face value, il , be said that the allegations would antc t irtstigatrng the deceased to commit suicide. case. there ls no reasonable nexus betv,er period to which the allegations pertain and the t death. ln that view of the matter, we do not f r the learned Single Judge of the High Couft he : in quashing the proceedings under Secllon . IPC-'' r that annot 'tt to ) any 1 the ate of 1 that erred 06 of 09 lt is manifest from the record thal the deceased and the petitioner-accused No.1 were husban. and wife, and that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are he parents of the accused No.1. A perusal of the contents r> the complaint and the FIR discloses that, within two mo rths after the marriage of the deceased and the petitioner- rccused No.1, they started residing in a separate portion of the house belonging to the respondent No.2. lt is furthe ' evldent that, \

about one week prior to the lodging of the complaint, the petrtioner-accused No.1 allegedly quarreled with the deceased and left for her parental home. lt is also borne out from the contents of the complaint that on 30.1 1 2020, the respondent No.2, along with his family members and neighbours, found that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging, and at that point of time the reasons for the death of the deceased were yet to be ascertained. On a careful analysis of the aforesaid material, it prima facie appears that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 were not in the company of the deceased during the week immediately preceding his death lt is thus clear that, at the initial stage, there was no specific suspicion or allegation regarding the role of the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the death of the deceased

10. lt is pertinent to note that the present criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 were initiated only after an inordinate delay of more than 20 days and are founded solely on a handwritten document, allegedly I ]l il i il il ;!i # a suicide note, which was stated to have been found in the house of the deceased by the younger son of :t e respondent No 2, who is the brother of the deceased. lie contents of the alleged suicide note. at best, indicate tha he petitioner_ accused No 1 used to sit on a chair in the pr tsence of the parents of the deceased without showing rl re respect to them that she used to spend considerable tinr, chatting with others, that she allegedly had no love or aflr ction towards the deceased, and that she was respo- ;ible for his separation from his parents Signrficanfly the so_cailed surcide note does not disclose any direct, prr> rmate, or live act of instigation. intentional aid, or active parl r ipation on the part of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3, wrich could be construed as abetment within the meaning of riection .1 07 of lPC, so as to attract the offence punishable tnder Section 306 of IPC 11 The cardrnal principle governin; the offence punishable under Section 306 of lpC is that tr:re must exist a close and direct proximity between the i lleged act of instigatron by the accused and the commissic,r of suicide by the deceased. Such proximity must be oi a compelling \

nature so as to establish an unequivocal nexus between the conduct of the accused and the resultant act of suicide Mere allegations of harassment, discord, or strained relations, in the absence of a specific, proximate, and oved act of incitement or instigation, are legally insufficient to sustain a charge of abetment 12 An important factor that requires consideration is the time gap between the alleged act of provocation and the commission of suicide. ln the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner-accused No.1 had left the house of the deceased nearly one week prior to the death of the deceased. ln such circumstances, it prima facie appears that the deceased might have been influenced by his own subjective apprehensions and mental state, which cannot be directly attributed to any immediate, continuing, or proximate act of instigation on the part of the petitioner-accused Nos.1 to 3 Notably, there is no material available on record to demonstrate that the petitioner-accused Nos.1 to 3 had, at any point proximate to the incident, contacted or interacted with the deceased in a manner that could be construed as

constituting abetment. ln the absence of ar' such cogent and proximate evrdence, the essentia foundational ingredients required to attract the offence uncr r Section 306 of IPC are conspicuously absent 13 A careful perusal of the entire reco I reveals that the police conducted the scene of offence parr hanama. took photographs of the scene while conducting thr: panchanama, prepared a rough sketch, and seized the lungr rllegedly used by the deceased for hanging. lf su,; ) were the circumstances, it raises a serious doubt as to ow the police failed to notice or recover the alleged suicider rote from the scene of offence during the initial investigat ln. and from where and under what circumstances the I rother of the deceased subsequently came into possessiorr cf the alleged suicide note.

14. A plain reading of the alleged sui<;i je note in the present case indicates that it primarily reflects the deceased's mental stress over past issues. H: ryever, it does not disclose any overt act of instigation, exrst )nce of a live \ \

and proximate link, intentional aid, or active participation on the part of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3, which can be directly connected to the alleged act of suicide. Accordingly, the alleged suicide note fails to attribute any specific, proximate, or culpable conduct to the petitioners-accused Nos l to 3 that could be construed as having driven the deceased to take the extreme step of endrng his life. Even if the contents of the said suicide note are taken at their face value and presumed to be true, they do not satisfy the essential ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC and, therefore, fall short of attracting the offence punishable under Section 306 of the lPC.

15. lt is the case of the prosecution that the incident occurred on 30. 112020 during the morning hours and that the brother of the deceased allegedly found the suicide note in the house on 24.12-2020 at about 09:00 hours. However, in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he is stated to have deposed that "after conducting the postmortem examination on the body of my elder brother, today we found a suicide note of my brother'"

This material inconsistency in the prosecutiorr version goes to the root of the matter and creates serious cr ubt regarding the genuineness and recovery of the allegerj suicide note, which is fatal to the prosecution case ln the ;t rsence of any cogent, credible. and legally admissible materi I establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, tnder Section 306 of the IPC compelling petitioners-accuse( Nos l to 3 to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial wouliJ amount to a sheer abuse of the process of law. '16. ln view of the above discussion, .l is Cou( is of the firm opinion that the essential ingredien s required to constitute the offence punishable under Secti, n 306 of lpC are not made out against the petitioners-accu;:d Nos.1 to 3. As such, the continuation of criminal proceecli^ 7s against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 is wholly untenz ble in law and liable to be quashed.

17. Accordingly, this Criminal petitiorr ; allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petiti, ners_accused Nos.1 to 3 in SC.No.3 of ZO24 on the file ,f the tearned \

Additional District & Sessions Judge, tVliryalguda, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed l- Sd/- A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER

1. The ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda

2. The Additional District and Sessions Judge at lVliryalguda'

3. The Station House officer' tViryalguda Police Station, Nalgonda District

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri M. A. K lVukheed, Advocate [OPUCI

6. One CC to Sri Rapolu Bhasker' Advocate [OPUC]

7. Two CD CoPies VH/BA e To, I

I HIGH COURT DATED: 0610212026

ORDER

CRLP.No.4233 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ll ialiE i r--) 2 6 ttB illt[

-t'. J, a:- t .r' i1- :li ?2, &\ 7 a