Peddireddy Kumar Reddy v. State Of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P And Anothers

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8262 OF 2011 ORDER:

The criminal petition is filed for quash of the proceedings in S.C.No.804 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 306 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent. None appears for the 2nd respondent, despite service of notice.

The complaint shows that it is filed by the husband of the deceased. The deceased is the elder wife of the complainant. It is alleged that the accused entered the house of the complainant and tried to outrage the modesty of the deceased and in that regard, report was made to the Police and later the accused started pressuring the complainant to get the matter compromised. The complainant informed the same to the deceased and the deceased committed suicide.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no inducement by the accused for the suicide committed by the deceased. In support thereof, he relies on the judgments of a learned single Judge of this Court in V. Shankaraiah v. State of A.P.1 and S. Rekha Prasad v. State of A.P.2, wherein it is held that there is no 1 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 812 (AP) 2 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 886 (AP)

TR, J Crl.P.No.8262 of 2011 material to show that the petitioners therein induced the deceased to commit suicide; therefore they would be entitled for quash of the proceedings.

But, in this case, facts are different. The standard of proof in criminal cases needs to be beyond doubt and there can be several doubts which the prosecution leaves in the case, the benefit of which the accused would be entitled to. The nature of inducement and whether the facts proved by the prosecution would amount to inducement would be established only after due trial. Hence, this Court opines that quash of proceedings at this stage is not advised. Criminal petition is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________ T. RAJANI, J August 28, 2018 MRR