Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Telangana, Single Bench of Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, partly allowed a petition filed by thirteen accused persons seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from an abetment of suicide case, where the victim allegedly took his own life following the filing of a complaint against him. The Court discharged ten of the accused, finding no basis for their continued prosecution in the absence of any reference to them in the victim's suicide note, while declining to interfere with proceedings against the remaining three, whose conduct the note directly attributed as a cause for the victim's death.

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 13, filed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings in a crime registered for offences under Sections 108 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution case was that the accused abetted the suicide of the deceased by allegedly harassing him through a false complaint accusing him of outraging the modesty of a woman during festival celebrations. It was alleged that after the complaint was lodged, the deceased suffered humiliation and subsequently died by suicide.

Also Read: Auction Sale Under Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Framework Void Ab Initio On Failure To Deposit Full Purchase Price Within Prescribed Period: Supreme Court

The petitioners contended that the complaint was genuine and that mere registration of a crime could not constitute abetment. They argued that the ingredients of abetment were not made out and that the suicide note did not disclose instigation by all accused. Reliance was placed on precedents concerning Section 306 IPC. The respondent opposed the petition, submitting that the suicide notes specifically named certain accused and that the matter required investigation. The prosecution also placed reliance on the suicide note and witness statements.

The Court examined whether the criminal proceedings against all thirteen accused could be sustained at the stage of investigation, particularly in light of the contents of the suicide note and the allegations in the complaint.

On the question of common intention and shared liability, the Court observed that "the act if committed by one would implicate all the persons, who carried a common intention." It further stated that "the investigation is still in progress" and "the truth is yet to be unraveled."

On the proximity between the alleged acts and the suicide, the Court recorded that "the proximity between the alleged act of the petitioners and the act of suicide committed by the victim needs to be established." It further noted that "the proximity between the alleged incident and the act of committing the suicide can be culled out at the stage of trial."

On the precedents cited by the petitioners, the Court noted that in Madan Mohan Singh, Ayyub, Rajesh @ Raja Yadav, and Atul Kumar, it was consistently held that specific abetment and intention to bring about suicide are essential ingredients of the offence. However, the Court observed that "the case on hand cannot be decided in the light of the aforementioned decisions", distinguishing the present matter on the ground that it involved allegations of a false complaint being orchestrated against the victim, causing humiliation that drove him to suicide — issues that warranted trial-level examination.

On the sustainability of proceedings at the investigation stage, the Court stated that "since the prima facie case is pointed out against the petitioners-accused, it is not just and proper to quash the proceedings at the nascent stage of investigation" and that "all the issues as to the truth in the allegations and also the proximity between the alleged act of abetment and the act of committing suicide are all triable by the trial court."

On the decisive significance of the suicide note, the Court recorded that "it is mentioned in the suicide note that accused Nos.1 to 13 have abetted the suicide of the victim. Even according to the complaint, it is the victim who suffered the alleged humiliation and it is only the victim who knows about the alleged harassment experienced by him and if at all accused Nos.4 to 13 have also committed any such act of abetting the suicide of the victim, then he could have mentioned the names of accused Nos.4 to 13 also. But, it is revealed from the suicide note that the victim is aggrieved by the acts of accused Nos.1 to 3 and it is specifically alleged that these three people have got the false complaint filed by accused No.11 against the victim."

The Court further recorded that "the allegations of the complaint lodged by the son of the victim, cannot travel beyond the contents of the suicide note" and consequently stated that "holding a prima facie case against accused Nos.4 to 11 would not be justified", concluding that "continuation of proceedings against the petitioner Nos.4 to 13-accused Nos.4 to 13 would amount to abuse of process of law."

Also Read: Power Under Section 391 CrPC To Permit Additional Evidence Must Be Exercised When Necessary To Prevent Failure Of Justice: Telangana High Court

The Court ordered, “Hence, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings in Crime No.99 of 2025 on the file of Neelwai Police Station, Ramagundam, only against the petitioner Nos.4 to 13 and the criminal petition against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri V. Raghunath, Senior Counsel, representing Ms. V. Sanjana, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri Prabhakar Rao, Senior Counsel, representing Sri K. Sanjeev, Advocate, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor (State)

Case Title: Rudrabatla Santhosh Kumar and 12 Others v. State of Telangana and Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.13500 of 2025
Bench: Justice Tirumala Devi Eada