G. K. Ilanthiraiyan, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvallur.
(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arraigned as A1 and A2. There are absolutely no avernments as against the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The prosecution filed charge sheet as against the petitioners that on 22.11.2011, a dead body was found in a well of a agricultural land. On the complaint of the Village Administrative Officer, initially the case was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter altered into for the offences under Section 306 of IPC. The petitioners are the Directors of M/s. Corporate Solutions Marketing Service India Pvt. Ltd., in which the deceased was working as accountant. The petitioners forcibly obtained signature in cheque leaves and took 21/2 sovereign of gold chain from the deceased for misusing of company's funds by the deceased. Therefore, the deceased feared for the complaint of misappropriation and as such the deceased committed suicide. Further submitted that there was no allegation as against the petitioners and only after thought they were implicated in the alleged offence. After the occurrence the relative of the victim created message in the victims mobile phone as if "the account of the victim was used for company's funds, a chain was collected and four cheque leaves with signature were also collected" and falsely implicated in this crime. Further submitted that even according to the prosecution, before the occurrence, there was no allegation of abetment or instigation by the petitioners to commit suicide. Therefore, the charge itself is not made out as against the petitioners. 2.1.He further submitted that there are catena of judgments have held that even though there is a word uttered by the person by saying to the victim to die, it will not amount to abetment of committing suicide. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P & another, 1995 Supp3 SCC 438 2. Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., 2002 5 SCC 371 3. Sonti Rama Krishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Sree & another., 2009 1 SCC 554 4. Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 1 SCC 750. 5. Mani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Chennai, 2014 3 MadLJ(Cri) 18 6.Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19293 of 2014 dated 28.09.2018 - P.Rajamohan Vs. Inspector of Police, Gudalur South Police Station, Theni District. 7.Crl.O.P(MD).No.12462 of 2014 dated 12.10.2018 - Santhosh Vs. Inspector of Police Kovilpatty West Police Station, Tuticorin District. 8.Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5069 of 2015 dated 30.10.2018 - Loganathan Vs. Inspector of Police, Pappanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the entire proceedings.
(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are totally two accused, in which the petitioners are arraigned as A1 and A2. Initially the case has been registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter altered into Section 306 of IPC and it is pending for committal in P.R.C.No. 6 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvallur. He further submitted that there is a message sent by the victim that the reason for the death of the deceased is that "his company all funds used in his account is only for company use but they saying its misuse of funds and they threatened him and collected his chain and four cheque leaves and signature in letters". So take this as evidence for his death and action on them and get back the chain and cheque leaves to his parents." Therefore there is prima facie made out as against the petitioners to charge under Section 306 of IPC and prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.;