Telangana High Court
Y.V. Jayaprada, Hyd vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P. on 17 February, 2022
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRL.P.No.6336 of 2014
ORDER:
1. Heard the submission of the learned counsel, who is appearing for the petitioner/accused No.4 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is representing the 1st respondent.
2. Though notice was served upon the 2nd respondent i.e., the de facto complainant, she failed to make her appearance either in-person or through an advocate and submit her contentions.
3. A married women by name Gaddam Saraswathi died by hanging herself on 30.10.2010. As per the case of the prosecution, A1 to A5 are responsible for the said act by abetting her to commit suicide, which is punishable under Section 306 IPC and they are also liable for punishment under Section 498-A IPC. All the accused were charge sheeted. Petitioner/A4 came before this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC No.12 of 2012, which are pending on the Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.6336 of 2014 2 file of the Court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
4. Thus in the light of the above background, the point that emerges for consideration is:-
Whether there exists any justifiable grounds to exercise the power granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C and to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner, who is arrayed as A4 (though mentioned in the petition as A5), in PRC No.12 of 2012 on the file of the Court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad?
5. The facts of the case as could be gathered through the complaint as well as the contents of the charge sheet are that the deceased Gaddam Saraswathi was given in marriage to A1 and the said marriage is outcome of a rape case that is pending against A1 wherein the deceased Saraswathi is the de facto complainant. After marriage, A1 being the husband and A2 being the mother-in-law and A3 being the sister-in- law harassed the deceased Saraswati for the sake of dowry. One month after the marriage, A1 left to America and subsequently the deceased Saraswathi was necked out of the house by A2 and A3, and A4 being the advocate helped and instigated A1 to A3 during course of harassment. Vexed with her life, Saraswathi committed suicide by hanging herself by Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.6336 of 2014 3 leaving a suicide note on 30.10.2010. These facts formed basis for the Police to investigate into and laid charge sheet.
6. Arguing at length, in respect of the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner-A4 submitted that petitioner-A4 is a practicing advocate and she has nothing to do with the family affairs of the deceased Saraswathi and A1 to A3. He also stated that the petitioner never appeared for A1 to A3 before any Court of Law and therefore, the proceedings, if any, to be laid or continued are only against A1 to A3, but not against the petitioner-A4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if it is taken into consideration and is accepted for a while that petitioner-A4 gave legal advise to A1 to A3 while dealing with the disputes that are pending between them on one hand and the deceased Saraswathi on the other hand, the said advise is only basing on her profession. He said that petitioner is a practicing advocate and she might have given some suggestions and that does not mean that she has instigated the deceased Swaraswathi to commit suicide.
Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.6336 of 2014 4
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that after investigation, police laid charge sheet and if the petitioner-A4 is found not guilty, she would be acquitted.
8. Section 498-A deals with the cases where husband or the relative of husband of a women, subjects such women to cruelty and prescribes punishment. For proper understanding, the said provision is extracted as under:
"Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
9. Thus, a bare reading of the provision makes it clear that the provision attracts only to the acts done by a husband or relative of the husband. In the case on hand, the petitioner/A4 is neither the husband of the deceased Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.6336 of 2014 5 Saraswathi nor the relative of the husband of the deceased Saraswathi. Therefore, undoubtedly, it can be held that proceedings against the petitioner-A4 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC would be an abuse of process of law.
10. Coming to the other provision of law i.e., Section 306 IPC, it deals with the offence of abetment to commit suicide. The said provision says that 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.
11. The word 'abetment' is defined under Section 107 IPC. Therefore, as per the said provision there should be either instigation or engaging with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy to do a thing or omit to do a thing which is prohibited or that there should be intentionally aid, by any act or illegal omission for doing that thing.
12. In this case, as per the version of the prosecution, the petitioner-A4 instigated A1 to A3 in harassing the deceased Saraswathi by giving wrong advises thereby extending support. Admittedly, under the Advocates Act, 1961, Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.6336 of 2014 6 protecting the interest of the client is the prime duty of an advocate. In doing so, if the advocate gives advise regarding the ways by which the client could come out from the clutches of law, that does not mean that he has instigated, and abetted to do an illegal act.
13. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, the decision rendered by this Court in G.Narayan Reddy vs. P.Sitapathi1 , wherein the Court at Para 7 of the order has made the following observations.
"Mr.Padmanabha Reddy rightly contended that exception (9) to Section 499 IPC provides a complete privilege and protects the advocate who made imputations even if they are per se defamatory if they are meant to protect the interest of the client and to advance his cause. He placed strong reliance on Anwaruddin vs. Fathim Bat. In that decision which is binding on this Court, the entire law on this branch has been settled. In that decision, the cowl upheld the dismissal of a complaint filed for defamation against a lawyer for matters uttered in Court in the course of his professional duties. The Court stated that such a complaint cannot be entertained and then traced the law on the subject. It referred to one of the earliest decisions Sullivan vs. Norton which laid down that such utterances by a lawyer in the course of his professional duties and required by his duty to his client are absolutely privileged.
Then referring to Tiruvangada Mudali vs. Tripurasundari Ammal which doubted, the correctness of the application of the 1 1991 ALT 2 (683) Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.6336 of 2014 7 English common law principles to the criminal law in laid regarding doctrine of absolute privilege, the learned judge stated that the law has to be applied purely on the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed as follows:
"There is a course of such decisions which, interpreting the ninth exception to Sec.499 Indian Penal Code, definitely lays down that when a lawyer is acting in the course of his professional duties and is thus compelled, subject to the disciplinary action of the Court, to put forward everything which may assist his client, good faith is to be presumed, and bad faith is not to be assumed, merely because the statement is prima facie, defamatory, and that there must be some independent allegation and proof of private malice from which in the circumstances of the case the Court considers itself justified in referring that the statement was not made because it was necessary in the interest of the client but that the occasion was wantonly seized as an opportunity to vent private malice. This is the general principle to be gathered from the decisions of the High Court of Bombay". Then the judge cited various decisions in support of his view. The learned judge further observed:
"I take it that this principle implies and carries with it this other principle that even the presence of malice will not override the presumption of good faith where the statement made was obviously necessary in the interests of the client and where the lawyer could not omit to take it without gravely imperiling the interests of his client and would in fact not be discharging his duty to his client unless he made it; that is, that, even though some private malice is gratified by the publication of the statement, if such publication was imperatively called for in the interest of his duty to his client, the presence of such malice will not negative the presumption of good faith. That principle seems to me to apply directly to the present case. If counter-petitioner's duty to his client imperatively demanded that the statement should be made, good faith is present, sufficient good faith to remove the offence Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.6336 of 2014 8 out of the category of defamation. That the counter-petitioner's duty to his client imperatively demanded that the statement should be made, seems to me unquestionable."
Thus, it cannot be presumed that a lawyer acting in the course of his professional duties and advising a client, has by doing so caused loss to the opposite party.
14. A perusal of the contents of the charge sheet, the complaint given by the de facto complaint and more particularly the suicide note that is alleged to have been written by the deceased Saraswathi goes to show that the allegation made is only that the petitioner being an advocate was giving wrong advises to A1 to A3 and taking support of the said advocate, they were acting against to the interest of the deceased Saraswathi and thereby subjected her to hardship. That does not mean that the petitioner being an advocate, instigated/abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Thus the ultimate conclusion is that the petitioner/A4 does not fall either within the purview of Section 498-A IPC or Section 306 IPC, which according to the version of the prosecution, were committed by the petitioner/A4 herein. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner- A4 would only amount to abuse of process of law.
Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.6336 of 2014 9
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner-A4 in PRC No.12 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
16. Interim stay granted on 12.06.2014 shall stand vacated.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.
_______________________________________ DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Date:17.2.2022 rkk