Madras High Court
Ramasamy … vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on: 19.11.2025
Pronounced on: 20.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
CRL OP(MD) NO. 17886 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.14126 & 14127 of 2023
Ramasamy …Petitioner
Vs
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Investigating Officer
Peravurani, Thanjavur District.
2. The Sub Inspector of Police
Peravurani Police Station
Thanjavur District. (Crime No.181/2021).
3. Vellaichamy
Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s):
M/s.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad,
Government Advocate (crl. Side), for R-1 & R-2
M/s.C.M.Arumugam, for R-3
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023
Prayer: To call for the records pertaining to the case in Spl.SC.No.13/2023 on the
file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur for offence
under section 306 of IPC and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (POA) Act, and quash.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Spl.SC. No.13 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur, pending against the petitioner for offence under section 306 of IPC and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act.
2(i). The petitioner / sole accused has been serving as the Principal of Sowdambiga Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Thuraiyur since 2003. A written complaint dated 25.12.2021 was submitted by the 3rd respondent, which was registered under section 174 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.818 of 2021 wherein it is alleged that the defacto complainant’s daughter had committed suicide by hanging on 25.12.2021 at about 11 am. After enquiry the alteration report was filed implicating the petitioner as accused for the alleged offence under section 306 of IPC read with 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act.
2(ii). The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/ Vellaichamy belongs to the Schedule Caste community and his daughter/victim, 2/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 Thulasi, had completed Higher Secondary and appeared for the NEET examination, but failed in “NEET 2018–2019”, she joined Sowdambiga Coaching Centre at Thuraiyur for coaching and attended the NEET examination – 2021. The petitioner is the Principal of the Sowdambiga Matriculation Higher Secondary School and Coordinator of Sowdambiga Coaching Center. However, the victim had secured 307 marks only. Since she has not obtained the required marks, hence the victim wanted to study Engineering or Agriculture. The mother of the victim approached the management for Transfer Certificate and Higher Secondary marks statement. The management informed the victim to pay the remaining tuition fees until then refused to hand over the certificates. According to the victim the petitioner had intention to readmit the student in the coaching center. Since the victim could not get admission in the other courses due to delay in obtaining the certificates, the victim committed suicide by hanging on 25.12.2021. Hence the complaint was registered under section 174 Cr.P.C. The prosecution filed alteration report after obtaining statements under section 161 of the defacto complainant and other witnesses, wherein it is stated that that defacto complainant’s daughter joined the coaching center with the help of a teacher Mr.Sugumar. At the time of the admission the victim had handed over the original certificates. Since she had secured 307 marks, there was no possibility of getting admission in the medical course, hence she wanted the certificates so as she can join some courses. Hence the victim and her mother Nagoor Mala had approached 3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 the petitioner to get the original certificates on 19.09.2021, it was informed that the they have to pay the remaining fee of Rs.81,800/- for having attended the coaching class. It is replied that they attended classes until 19.04.2021, thereafter they have conducted online classes due to Covid-19. However, they have paid Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner who had informed the mother to pay the balance Rs. 60,000/-. The victim’s mother and brother approached the petitioner on 29.10.2021 and requested the original certificates be handed over. At that time, the petitioner allegedly abused them by using their caste name. Thereafter, the victim’s mother and grandmother along with one Muthukumar had approached the petitioner on 07.12.2021 and paid Rs.5,000/- and requested the petitioner to hand over the certificates. The petitioner allegedly abused them and handed over the certificates after waiving the balance fees of Rs.57,000/- on 07.12.2021. By then the admission time for joining other courses had already completed and the victim could not join courses in any other institution. Hence, the victim was frustrated and had committed suicide by hanging herself on 25.12.2021. Hence the alteration report was filed under section 306 of IPC read with 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act.
3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC, would not be attracted in the present case. The said section requires proof of abetment as defined under section 107 of IPC, involving instigation, 4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 conspiracy or intentional aid leading directly to suicide. There must be a positive act with mens rea proximate to the suicide, intending to push the victim to such an end. However, in the present case the victim has committed suicide on 25.12.2021 and the certificates were returned to the victim 18 days prior to the offence. Hence, there is no proximate act exists as required. He further submitted that the petitioner was holding the post of Principal and he has been permitted for administration only and he lacked authority to waive fees without management approval. Inspite of the same the petitioner tried and facilitated to hand over certificates by waiving remaining fees payable by the victim. There is no material available either on facts or in the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to establish the instigation.
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent / defacto complainant submitted that they paid 73,000/- on various days and the total fees was Rs.1,30,000/- including food. Due to Covid-19 the coaching center conducted online classes only. Inspite of the coaching the victim had obtained only 307 marks. Hence the victim tried colleges at Ramanathapuram, Trichy wherein the colleges stated that all the admissions would be closed on 25.10.2021, further it is stipulated that “the candidate who does not report for admission for the college on the stipulated date will lose seat and cannot claim the seat afterwards”. The petitioner was well aware that the retention of original certificates would 5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 make the student lose the admission and the petitioner cannot have lien over the certificates for the alleged balance fees. Also, aware that the petitioner shall not receive the original certificates but he intentionally received the same and refused to return back until 07.12.2021 which is illegal. The NEET exam was held on 12.09.2021 and results published on 01.11.2021, the victim started requesting from 12.09.2021 to return but the same was kept as lien for the balance fees payment. Hence by belatedly returning the certificates the victim has lost the opportunity to join other colleges, frustrated the victim committed suicide, hence the petitioner had abetted the suicide.
5. After hearing the rival submissions this Court has given its anxious consideration. In order to consider the rival submissions, it is necessary to consider the Sections 107 and 306 of IPC which reads as follows:
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.
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, 6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
6. The term “abetment” involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be granted. To attract section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the section 306 and 107 in the case of Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2021) 13 SCC 806, has held as follows:-
“9. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. Except the self-serving statements of the complainant and other witnesses stating that deceased was in love with the appellant, there is no other material to show that appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. From the material placed on record it is clear that on the date of incident on 04.05.2018 deceased went to the house of the appellant and consumed poison by taking out from a small bottle which he has carried in his pocket. Merely because he consumed poison in front of the house of the appellant, that itself will not indicate any relation of the appellant with the deceased. ‘Abetment’ involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a 7/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. There is nothing on record to show that appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306, IPC. Even with regard to offence alleged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed that except vague and bald statement that the appellant and other family members abused deceased by uttering casteist words but there is nothing on record to show to attract any of the ingredients for the alleged offence also.
This Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is impossible to lay down any straightjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts 8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 and circumstances.
In the case of (2009) 16 SCC 605 Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306, IPC this Court has held as under :
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be 9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” In the judgment in the case of S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 3 :
(2010) 12 SCC 190 this Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC. Paragraph 25 of the judgment reads as under :
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. …
10. By applying the aforesaid ratio decided by this Court, we have carefully scrutinized the material on record and examined the facts of the case on hand. Except the statement that the deceased was in relation with the appellant, there is no material at all to show that appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. In fact, at earlier point of time when the deceased was stalking the appellant, the appellant along with her father went to the police station complained about the calls which were being 10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 made by the deceased to the appellant. Same is evident from the statement of S.I. Manoj Kumar recorded on 05.07.2018.
In his statement recorded he has clearly deposed that the father along with the appellant went to the police post and complained against the deceased who was continuously calling the appellant and proposing that she should marry him with a threat that he will die otherwise. Having regard to such material placed on record and in absence of any material within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC, there is absolutely no basis to proceed against the appellant for the alleged offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever.”
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh V. State of Haryana, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 44, has held as follows while considering the Section 306:-
“9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the 11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. (See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu V. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707).
8. The section 107 IPC has been explained in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra V. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367, as follows :-
“16. Speaking for the three-judge Bench in Ramesh Kumar case [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088], R.C.Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of “instigation”, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes “instigation” must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainly to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an “instigation” may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
17. Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of 12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action;
provoke to action or reaction” (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts” (See Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th Edn.)”.
9. In the case of Praveen Pradhan V. State of Uttaranchal, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734 it has been held as under:
14. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.
10. In the above cited judgments the Hon’ble Court has held ‘abetment’ involves mental process of instigation and intention. Without positive act of instigation or aid in committing suicide the ingredients under section 306 would not be attracted. Further it requires active act or direct act. Furthermore, the act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position to commit suicide. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has refused to hand over the original certificates of the victim inspite of consistent request made by the mother and grandmother of the victim. And the victim could not join any other courses due to delay in handing over the original certificate, 13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 frustrated victim had committed suicide. The bare reading of the above allegations indicate that the same is not instigation or intention to push to commit suicide and there is no positive / active act of mens rea of instigation or intention to push to commit suicide. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not committed any such offence to attract the ingredients of section 306 and 107.
11. Now the crucial question is that whether the petitioner ought to face trial or whether the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. In the judgment in the case of Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapur reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 the Court has considered the scope of the provision under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and has laid down the steps which should be followed by the High Court to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing of proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. wherein four steps have been stated which is extracted as under:
“30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:
30.1.Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?14/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 30.2.Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
30.3.Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
30.4.Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” In the present case, the answer to all the four steps is in affirmative, hence this Court is of the considered opinion that the present charge sheet is liable to be quashed and the petitioner ought not to be allowed to face the trial, if allowed the same would be abuse of process of law and would not serve the ends of justice. 15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023
12. The next contention of the petitioner is that the allegations would not attract the ingredients of the section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. In order to consider whether the ingredients of the said section would be attracted, the section is extracted:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities:-
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—
(i)… (va). commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;
(The sub clause (va) was amended by Act 1 of 2016 with effect from 26.01.2016)” The aforesaid section is applicable whenever the IPC sections stated under the schedule are attracted. In the present case, sections 306 and 107 IPC are not stated in the said schedule. When the sections 306 is not stated in the schedule, then the section 3(2)(va), may not be attracted.
13. Further the said section is not standalone but it enhances punishment for IPC offences punishable by 10+ years’ imprisonment, committed knowingly the victim belongs to SC/ST. In the present case, if the petitioner is found guilty of 16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, then he is also liable to be punished under the above special Act. As already stated, the charge sheet does not disclose offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act would not get attracted. Further, the offence should have been committed merely because the victim is the member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. But in the present case, the petitioner has not committed any offence under section 306, more so he has not committed any offence knowingly the victim belongs to SC/ST. Hence, the offence under Section 306 of IPC would not attract as stated above, consequently the Section 3(2)(v) fails automatically. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case under section 3(2)(va) was not attracted, consequently the petitioner is entitled to quash.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“102….. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not 17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.” Applying the Bhajan Lal’s judgment, in the present case the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence.
15. For the reasons stated supra, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the charge sheet filed in Spl.SC.No.13/2023 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur is hereby quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20-01-2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
KSA
18/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Investigating Officer Peravurani, Thanjavur District.
3. The Sub Inspector of Police Peravurani Police Station Thanjavur District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
19/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.17886 of 2023 S.SRIMATHY,J KSA ORDER IN CRL OP(MD). No.17886 of 2023 20.01.2026 20/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:47:42 pm )