Madras High Court
Justin Raj vs State Represented By on 30 October, 2014
Author: S.Vimala
Bench: S.Vimala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.10.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Crl.O.P. (MD) No.2412 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2008 1.Justin Raj 2.Roselet ... Petitioner/Accused No.1&3 Vs. 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.801 of 2003) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Christy Vimala ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 3 in P.R.C.No.38 of 2006 pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District. !For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Jeyakumar For Respondent 1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl.side) :ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 for quashing the charge sheet laid against them in P.R.C.No.38 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District.
2.The accused persons are facing trial in respect of the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Ordinance Act, 2003 r/w. Section 306 I.P.C. in P.R.C.No.38 of 2006.
3.The brief facts are as follows:
3.1.The case was originally registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in Thiruvattar Police Station Crime No.801 of 2003 in respect of suspicious death of one Devaraj, aged 42 years, who died on 26.12.2003. Originally, there were three accused persons, out of which the second accused filed a petition to quash the proceedings as against him and in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9572 of 2007, by the order dated 07.02.2008, the proceedings against the second accused viz., S.Victor Jebaraj have been quashed. The case was subsequently altered to one under Section 306 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Ordinance Act, 2003.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the wife of the deceased herself gave a statement that she had no suspicion over anybody regarding the death of her husband and that her husband committed suicide as he incurred unbearably huge debts. It is also pointed out that the statement of the other witnesses also did not point out any specific overt act as against the petitioners herein (A1 and A3) and therefore, prima facie no case has been made out as against the petitioners herein and the prosecution must be quashed as against them. It is the contention of the petitioners that there is not even prima facie materials to show that either they abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Whether this contention can be accepted is the issue to be considered.
5.Before discussing the merits of the matter, it is necessary to consider the provision relating to abetment and abetment to commit suicide. Sections 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are extracted hereunder:
"107.Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
306.Abetment of suicide.-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Whether it is proved by the prosecution that the accused is guilty of abetment as contemplated under Sections 107 and 306 I.P.C., is the issue to be decided.
6.According to the statement of the wife of the deceased, the deceased was in deep trouble as he was not able to repay the debts borrowed by him. It is nowhere stated that the accused/creditors were exerting undue pressure upon the accused or that the creditors caused any undue harassment to the deceased. It is also represented that the accused persons have already moved the criminal court for prosecution of the deceased invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the accused persons have resorted to legal process, it is improbable that they would have resorted to illegal methods also. There is also no positive material to show that the accused persons were harassing the deceased to the extent of driving the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed and it is quashed accordingly.
7.This Criminal Original Petition is allowed accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate at Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.