1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.980 of 2019 pending on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge – cum – Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal. The petitioner herein is sole accused in the said case. The offence alleged against the petitioner herein is under Section 306 of IPC.

2. Heard Mr.Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the 1st respondent-State and perused the record.

3. As per the charge sheet, the allegations against the petitioner are as follows:-

i) The deceased Damma Naresh and L.W.7 Pinninti Shruti, are close relatives. They are good friends. They wanted to get marry with the consent of their parents. But the parents of the deceased did not agree for the same. The parents of the deceased had performed marriage of the deceased with L.W.4-Damma Soujanya, in August, 2018. Thereafter, they have shifted to Hyderabad and used to reside in a rented house. L.W.4 got pregnancy and thereafter she went to her parents house for the purpose of delivery. The deceased used to work as Administrator in Yashoda hospital.

ii) Parents of L.W.7 fixed her marriage with the petitioner herein/accused. The deceased came to know about the said fact. Therefore, he spoke to L.W.7 over phone few times. The petitioner came to know about the said fact and torture meted out by L.W.7 by the deceased calling her over phone. Therefore, the petitioner threatened the deceased. The deceased informed about the said torture meted out by him by the accused to his colleague and also to his close friend, L.W.6. The petitioner/accused enquired about the job details of the deceased and went to his office on 01.11.2018 and forcibly took him on his bullet towards Gandipet side and threatened him to kill. He has also horrified him stating that he will file a police complaint and he will not let him lead normal life. The petitioner/accused called the deceased on 02.11.2018, took his laptop, gave him a threat and sent him back informing him that he has to face serious consequences. The deceased called L.W.6 and informed him the said fact.

iii) The deceased stopped responding to the calls of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner somehow collected mobile number of L.W.4- wife of the deceased and introduced himself that he is a friend of the deceased and enquired with her with regard to any other mobile number of the deceased. Since L.W.4 is not aware of the consequences, gave her husband’s (deceased) new mobile number. The petitioner on 02.11.2018 informed L.W.4 that her husband is disturbing L.W.7-his fiancée and warned that he will get rid of the deceased. Thereafter, L.W.4 spoke to her husband and enquired about it but the deceased did not show any interest on the said issue. L.W.4 has also informed the deceased that she has given his new mobile number to the accused and on coming to know about the same, deceased expressed his dissatisfaction for giving his new number to the accused informing that he will talk to her next day morning. Thereafter, L.W.4 tried to contact the deceased several times but there was no response. Thereafter, she came to know that the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself. Thus, the deceased committed suicide due to the continuous harassment and torture meted out to him by the petitioner/accused.

4. On receipt of complaint from the 2nd respondent, the Police, registered a case in Cr.No.539 of 2018 for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, they have altered the section from 174 of Cr.P.C. to Section 306 of I.P.C. After conducting investigation, the police have laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and the same was taken on file vide S.C.No.980 of 2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contents of the charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the offence alleged against him. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The Police, without considering the statements of L.Ws.5 and 6, laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. There is no abetment by the petitioner/accused so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide. He would further submit that though the Police have recorded the statements of 13 witnesses, none of them spoke about the alleged abetment by the petitioner so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide. According to him, the Police have implicated the petitioner in a false case at the instance of the 2nd respondent/defactocomplainant, father of the deceased.

6. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.980 of 2019 against the petitioner herein.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in compliance of the order dated 25.02.2020, he has taken out notice to the 2nd respondent to the address mentioned in the complaint and the cover was returned with an endorsement as “party refused, hence sent to the sender”. Referring to the said endorsement, learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that the refusal amounts to service. There is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor referring to the contents of the alteration memo and also the contents of the charge sheet would submit that the Police have recorded the statements of L.W.4-wife of the deceased, L.W.5 brother of L.W.1, L.W.6-an employee in Yashoda Hospital wherein the deceased used to work, L.W.7- fiancée of the petitioner/accused and they have also collected CCTV footages. Considering the said statements, the Police have laid the charge sheet against the petitioner herein. Thus, there are specific allegations of harassment and torture by the petitioner/accused. There are several triable aspects to be decided by the trial Court after full fledged trial. The petitioner has to face trial to put forth his defence before the trial Court to prove his innocence. Instead of doing so, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.980 of 2018 against him.

9. With the said submissions, learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present application.

10. A perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that the deceased and L.W.7 are relatives. They fell in love. They wanted to marry with the consent of their parents. The parents of L.W.7 did not agree for the said marriage. On the other hand, the parents of the deceased got his marriage with L.W.4. Thereafter, the marriage of L.W.7 was fixed with the petitioner/accused. The deceased came to know about the said fact and he started making calls to L.W.7 and the petitioner/accused came to know about the said fact. Thereafter, he has threatened the deceased.

11. In the charge sheet, it is also specifically mentioned that the Investigating Officer has recorded statement of L.W.6-Administrator in Yashoda Hospital where the deceased used to work. L.W.6 specifically spoke about the above stated facts and also harassment meted out by the deceased from the petitioner herein/accused. It is also specifically stated by L.W.6 that the petitioner came to the work place of the deceased on 1st November evening, and after sometime, L.W.6 made a phone call to the deceased and he has not lifted the said phone. The deceased called back L.W.6 in the night and informed about the entire episode and also the petitioner taking him on bullet and took him to outer ring road, tortured manhandled and also threatened him. He has also informed that the petitioner told him that the petitioner has already lodged a complaint with the Police and the deceased has to go to jail. L.W.6 further specifically stated that the deceased informed him on 2nd November, at about 11.00 P.M., the deceased called him and informed him that the petitioner came in the morning, took him to Kukatpaly at 7.00 A.M, took his laptop and threatened him. The deceased informed L.W.6 that the petitioner told him that he has informed everything to L.W.4-wife of the deceased and therefore, he has scared of the same.

12. The Investigating Officer has also collected the CCTV footage and also recorded the statements of L.W.4-wife of the deceased and L.W.7, fiancée of the petitioner. It is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that the petitioner herein has informed about the entire episode to L.w.7, his fiancée and also about his chasing of the deceased and not allow the deceased to live at any cost. Thereafter, L.W.7 suggested the petitioner to leave the matter there and not to peruse further. But the petitioner herein told that he will not leave the deceased. The deceased has sent a message to his wife on 03.11.2018 at 01.23 hours stating as “ It happens because of Shruti.” At 1.56 hours, he sent another message as “Suicide chesukuntunna” (committing suicide).

13. Thus, there are several triable issues to be considered by the trial Court after conducting full fledged trial. Prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. Dates and timings of the incident etc., are also specifically mentioned. As stated above, the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of L.Ws.1 to 13. On consideration of the said statements and also evidence collected only, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet.

14. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 847 [LQ/SC/2019/258] , wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the petitioner herein failed to establish any ground for quashing the proceedings by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the present petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

16. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.

17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.