Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the alleged abusive language did not amount to abetment of suicide and that the High Court was correct in exercising its power under Section 482 to quash the proceedings.

Summary

The appellant, Sonti Rama Krishna, filed a complaint alleging that his son, Venkateswara Rao, had been insulted by his wife, Sonti Shanti Sree, after their arranged marriage, and that the insult drove the son to commit suicide. The police registered a case under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court, invoking its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC, quashed the proceedings, finding that the ingredients of Section 306 were not satisfied. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court should not have interfered and that the accused’s abusive language amounted to instigation. The Supreme Court examined the factual chronology, noting the absence of a suicide note, the delay between the alleged insult and the death, and the lack of clear intention to induce suicide, and reiterated that words spoken in a fit of anger without intent cannot constitute abetment. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court’s order was correct and that no threshold interference under Section 482 was warranted. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the alleged abusive language and conduct constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC
Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings
Whether words uttered in anger without intention can be treated as instigation under Section 107 IPC

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 174, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 306

Subjects

abetment of suicideSection 306 IPCSection 482 CrPCquashing of criminal proceedingsthreshold interferencesuicidedowry harassmentcriminal law

Judgment

(2008) 16 S.C.R. 743

--t-
SONTI RAMA KRISHNA A'
v.
SONTI SHANTI SREE AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1890 of 2008)

NOVEMBER 28, 2008
B
• [DR. ARIJIT PASAVAT AND DR. MUKUNOAKAM
)": SHARMA, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s. 482- Proceeding,
for offence of uls. 306 /PC - High Court quashing the c
proceedings on the finding that ingredients of s.306 /PC not
applicable to the facts of the case - On appeal, held: Normally
threshold interference not permissible uls. 482 - However, in
the facts of the case, proceeding right by quashed - Penal
Code, 1860 - s. 306 D
... Appellant filed a complaint with police, alleging that
~ his son (deceased) and respondent No. 1 were married.
On the next day of the nuptial i.e. 3.6.2004 at the house
of the accused, she openly insulted the deceased stating
that he was impotent and she did not accept the E
marriage. The deceased had told his mother and sister
that the accused told him that she was not interested in
marrying an ugly person. On 5.6.2004, the deceased
'-.
returned to his native place. On 6.6.2004, the deceased
/

~
left his native place without informing anyone. On ,F
9.6.2004, the complainant received a message from police
station that the deceased had committed suicide.
Complainant alleged that the accused was responsible
for suicidal death of her husband.
., G
Respondent-accused field a petition uls 482 Cr.P.C .
~-
seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. High
Court quashed the proceedings finding that the
ingredients of s.306 IPC have no application to the facts
743 H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORi6 {gQQ,8] 16 S.C.R.

,,,_ A of the case. Hence, the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: Though, normally threshold interferenc;~
should not be made under Section 482. But, in th~
· B background of the instant case, no interference is called
tofwith the order pass~d by the High Court. The appellant
filed a complaint after·about two and a half months of the
alleged incident. Allegation was that the police did not ~
· 'r.e)gister a complaint. Initially on the basis of information
c'-:i'~o~g"~ci 1 e.nquiry in terms of Section 174 Cr.P.C, was
co·tJ~1ucted and the police started the proceedings. At
different points of time, different versions have been
given·~ In th_e first stage during invest_igation under
Section 174 Cr.P.C it was stated th~t the accused had
o come to the village with the deceased b1d .§Mbsequently,
stand was that the accused did not accompany the
deceased bet-ause the latter was bad and ugly looking.
There was no suicide note. Admittedly, marriage waa an
arranged one. -,, that is so, it is not believable that the
E deceased and the accused had not met. The alleged
grievance of the accused that the deceased was an ugly
man could not have been noticed after marriF1ge, for the
first time on 3.6.?004. The date of marriage was 29.5,20041
If is fairly well settled that words' uttered in a flt of anger
F or emotion without any intention cannot be termed -as
in!>Ugation. [Paras 10, 11 and 12) [748-G-H; 74~-A-C; E-F]
- ,.'i_. ..'·" ,_,_ CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
J'": ,-;-,.:·1 ....

.,. No. ·1a90 of 2ooa.

G From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.9.2006 of the
· Hjgh-'GourF-Of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Criminal Petition No. 3731 of 2005.

R. Nedumaran for the Appellant.
H Shiv Kumar Suri and D. Bharathi Reddy for the
SONTI RAMA KRISHNA v. SONTI SHANTI SREE AND . 745
ANR.

-->- Respondents. A

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

' . 2. Challenge in thi~ appeal is to the order passed by a B
learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
allowing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The respondent
"" No. 1 filed a petition for quashing the prosecution against her
in PRC No. 1/05 on the file of learned II Additional Judicial, First · C
Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam. The High Court by the
impugned order allowed the application qua'shing the
proceedings.

3. A complaint was filed by the appellant who is father of
D
Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased')
who was a highly qualified person and was employed in
4( Kendriya Vidhyalaya at Machilipatnam. The allegations in the
~ complaint were that his marriage was performed with the
accused-respondent No. 1 on 29.5.2004 at Tirupathi. It is
alleged that while the accused was fair in complexion, the E
deceased was not good looking. It is stated that while the family
of the accused had informed that a house site stood in the
name of the accused and that she had 30 sovereigns of gold
ornaments and that they would perform the marriage in a grand
scale and pay Rs.25,000/- towards the bride's clothes, F
~
subsequently, they changed their mind and promised to pay the
sum of Rs.25,000/- to the bride after nuptials. Nuptials were
fixed at the house of the accused on 02.06.2004. On the next
day morning the accused is alieged to have. openly in the
presence of the mother and sister of the deceased '.arid other ·G
relatives, insulted the deceased stating that he was· impotent,
41
-f
that her life was spoiled and that she did not accept the
marriage. The accused is alleged to have heckled her husband
1
that it was better to die rather to live as an impotent husband
and spoil her life. According to the complainant, the deceased H
'
lo

746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A informed his mother and sister that the accused did not allow -+--
him to cohabit, stating that she was not interested in marrying
an ugly person. Feeling ashamed and humiliated by the rude •
and unjust behaviour, and the attitude of the accused, the
deceased is said to have suffered mental agony. He, however,
B stayed for the next two days at V~jayawada and thereafter
returned to his native place along with his mother and sister on . j '

05.06.2004, while .the accused did not come with him. On
06.06.2004, the deceased is said to have left his native village :'( .,
- Turakapalem even without informing the complainant and
c members of his family. On 09.06.2004, the complainant
received a message from lnnakudurupet Police Station that the
deceased had committed suicide. According to the ;

complainant, the accused was solely resp.onsible. for tne
suicidal death of her husband and that she had abetted in his
committing suicide. It was alleged that since the deceased was
D
insulted by the accused, he felt ashamed and committed
suicide and that the acts and omissions of the accused had
driven the deceased to commit suicide. The intentional , "'
~
instigation and cruel conduct of the accused had prompted the
deceased to commit suicide. On being informed, both the
E accused and her mother are alleged to have come to
Machilipatnam. The accused removed her Mangalasutram from
' her neck, had thrown only the black beads on the dead body
keeping the gold suthrams with her and left the place stating
that she had no connectien with the family of the complainant
F and the Almighty had fulfilled her desire. It was alleged that,
. thereafter, the accused did not visit the house of the A-
complainant and also did she attend the funeral ceremony of
her husband.

G 4. Questioning the issuance of process in proceedings,
r~spondent
. . No. 1 fil~d
. a petition before the High Court. It was
- ~

stated that even if allegations in the complaint are accepted as .\
true, the abusive language alleged to have been used by the
accus.ed on 3.6.2004 could not have led to suicide as the ,.
!

deceased ha·d come back to his native. village after staying
H
J

SONTI RAMA KRISHNA v. $0NTI SHANTI SREE AND 747
ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
7l three days in the house of the accused and on 9.6.2004 the A
dead body was recovered from a lodging house where the
accused had stayed under an assumed name and after giving
a false address.

5. The stand of the present appellant was that the harsh B
and abusive language used by the accused was the cause of
' ~
suicide and therefore the High Court ought not to have
ye interfered in the matter. The High Court found that the
ingredients of Section 306 IPC which relate to abetment of
suicide have no application to the facts of the case.
c
6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel submitted that
the High Court should not have gone into the merits of the case

•..
and it should not have interfered in the manner done .

7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the other hand
• submitted that there were suppressions at every stage by the
D
appellant. The true purpose was to harass respondent No. 1
and her family members. On their own showing, huge demands
~
for dowry were raised and the suicide, if any, was not because
of any abusive language used by respondent No. 1. As is
E
admitted by the prosecution, the deceased stayed for three
days in the house of accused and thereafter came to his own
village. For strange reasons instead of staying in his own house
in Machilipatnam, he stayed at a lodging house under false
name and fictitious address. If he was really hurt and had any
F
grudge from the abusive language of the accused as
..A contended in the complaint, he could have committed suicide
immediately after the so called abuses were made. Even
otherwise, he could have done so at his home, after reaching
his native village. But he did not do that. He also did not commit
suicide in his place of stay at Machilipatnam and committed G
.., suicide at a lodging house. All this goes to show that there was
f
no abetment of suicide.

8. Section 306 deals with. abetment of suicide and
Section 107 deals with abetment of a thing. They read as H
~.

748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A follows: +-
''306. Abetment of suicide- If any person commits s.uieide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, ~h91l bt;
punished with imprisonment of either descri~U0R f(:)f a term
-B which may extend to ten years and shall also bei liable to
fine .

. 107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a
thing, who:- ~

c 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
D
Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission the
dQing of that thing. ··
••
Explanation 1-A person who, by willful misrepresentation
·E or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is
bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is s~id
to instigate the doing of that thinQ.

Explanation 2:- Whoever, .either prior to or at the time of
F the 'commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

9. Certain factual aspects need to be noted:
G
The present appellant filed a complaint to the
Supe.rintendent of Police after about two and a half months of ,.
the alleged incident. Allegation was that the police did not
register a complaint. Ultimately, the complaint was filed on
H 26.8.2004. Initially on the basis of information lodged, enquiry
SONTI RAMA KRISHNA v. SONTI SHANTI SREE AND 749
ANR. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

~ i' in terms of Section 174 of the Code, was conducted and the A
police started the proceedings. It is to be noted that at different
points of time, different versions have been given. In the first
stage during investigation under Section 174 of the Code it
was stated that the accused had come to the village with the
deceased. Interestingly, there was no suicide note. Admittedly, B
marriage was an arranged one. If that is so, it is not believable
that the deceased and the accused
•
had not met. The allegedI
';. grievance of the accused that the deceased was an ugly man
could not have been noticed after marriage, for the first time
on 3.6.2004. The date of marrjage was 29.5.2004. It is fairly c
well settled that words utt~re9 in a fit of anger or emotion
without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.

11. Additionally, there was no suicide note in the present
case. As noted earlier different versions of death were given,
At the earlier stage, during investigation, under Section 174 of D
Code, the version was that the accused had accompanied the
41
dece.ased to the native home, but subsequently stand was that
... the accused did not accompany the deceased because the
latter was bad and ugly looking.
E
12. Though, normally threshold interference should not be
made under Section 482, in the aforesaid background, this is
not a case where any interference is called for with the order,
by the High Court. The appe~I is dismissed.
F
' K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
" _A