Telangana High Court
Lingala Prabhakar vs The State Of Telangana on 21 July, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.9029 OF 2024 AND 2570 OF 2025
DATE: 21.07.2026
Between :
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9029 OF 2024:
Mr. Lingala Prabhakar.
... Petitioner/Accused No.1.
AND
The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.
... Respondents.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2570 OF 2025:
Pothu Srinivas.
... Petitioner/Accused No.2
AND
The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad through S.H.O. P.S. Jannaram,
Mancherial District and another.
... Respondents.
2
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Petition No. 9029 of 2024 has been filed by the
petitioner/Accused No.1, and Criminal Petition No. 2570 of 2025 has
been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashing of the
proceedings against them in S.C. No. 84 of 2024 on the file of the
Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,
Mancherial, arising out of Crime No.35 of 2024 of Jannaram police
station for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC“), and Section 92(a) of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, “the Act”).
2. Heard Mr. S. Srinivasa Chary, learned Counsel for the petitioner;
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
No.1-State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioners, while
working as Superintendent and Senior Assistant, allegedly subjected
the deceased, who was serving as a Junior Technical Officer, to
harassment by insulting him on account of his physical disability and by
frequently criticizing his work. It is alleged that, when the deceased
applied for 15 days of earned leave following the death of his father,
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 refused to sanction the leave. Subsequently, on
14.03.2024, when the deceased again requested leave to perform his
3
father’s three-month death rituals, the accused allegedly refused the
request and remarked that he could die like his father. Unable to bear
the alleged humiliation, the deceased is stated to have become
mentally depressed and consumed Paraquat pesticide on 14.03.2024.
It is further alleged that he informed his mother that his superior officers
had been harassing him and had refused to grant him leave. He
ultimately succumbed to the effects of the poison on 16.03.2024 while
undergoing treatment in the hospital. Based on the report lodged by the
mother of the deceased, the present crime came to be registered.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations
contained in the charge sheet, even if accepted at their face value, do
not constitute the offences punishable under Section 306 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 92(a) of the Act. It is
submitted that there is no material to establish any instigation,
conspiracy, or intentional aid, as contemplated under Section 107 of
the IPC, so as to attract the offence of abetment of suicide. Learned
counsel further submits that the petitioners, who were serving only as
Superintendent and Senior Assistant, were not the superior officers of
the deceased and had no authority either to sanction or refuse leave,
such power being vested exclusively in the Executive Engineer. It is
further contended that the petitioners were themselves subordinate
4
employees and that the allegations against them, even if accepted,
would not constitute abetment by any stretch of imagination.
4.2. It is further submitted that the allegations are omnibus and
vague in nature, and that no specific overt acts have been attributed to
the petitioners. Even if the allegations are taken at their face value,
there is nothing to demonstrate the requisite mens rea or establish any
proximate nexus between the conduct of the petitioners and the suicide
committed by the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the
prosecution case suffers from material inconsistencies, and the alleged
dying declaration made to the de facto complainant is ex facie
unreliable and falls short of the legal requirements. Apart from the
statements recorded during investigation, there is no other material to
indicate that the petitioners committed any act constituting the essential
ingredients of the offence under Section 92(a) of the Act. In the
absence of any material showing that the deceased was intentionally
insulted or intimidated on account of his disability in public view, the
continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners would amount to
an abuse of the process of law.
4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on Popular
Muthaiah v. State, (2006) 7 SCC 296; Manjunath v. State of Karnataka,
2023 INSC 978; G. Sagar Suri v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2000) 2 SCC
636; Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2018) 13 SCC 26; and Puran
5
Chand v. State of Haryana, (2010) 6 SCC 566, submits that, in the
absence of any material demonstrating the petitioners’ active
involvement in the alleged abetment, the criminal proceedings cannot
be sustained merely on suspicion. It is argued that, unless the
prosecution establishes the requisite mens rea and a proximate nexus
between the conduct of the accused and the commission of suicide,
the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are not
made out. Therefore, the continuance of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition,
contending that the material collected during the course of investigation
prima facie discloses the commission of the offences alleged against
the petitioners. It is submitted that, while working as Superintendent
and Senior Assistant, the petitioners subjected the deceased to
continuous harassment by frequently insulting him on account of his
disability, criticizing his work, and refusing to grant leave on more than
one occasion. It is further submitted that, when the deceased sought
leave to perform his father’s death rituals, the petitioners not only
refused his request but also allegedly told him that he would die like his
father. According to the prosecution, these acts drove the deceased
6
into severe mental distress, ultimately leading him to commit suicide by
consuming pesticide.
5.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the
witnesses examined during the course of investigation, particularly the
mother of the deceased, have supported the prosecution case. At this
stage, the truthfulness or reliability of the material collected during
investigation cannot be examined in detail. Since the charge sheet
discloses the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, which are
matters for trial, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the
material available on record.
7. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that the petitioners,
while working in the same office as the deceased, subjected him to
harassment by frequently criticizing his work, humiliating him, refusing
to grant leave on account of his disability, and, on the date of the
incident, allegedly remarking that he could die like his father. However,
apart from the aforesaid allegations, the charge sheet does not
disclose any material indicating that the petitioners had either intended
the deceased to commit suicide or had instigated, conspired with, or
intentionally aided him in taking the extreme step, as contemplated
under Section 107 of the IPC, which forms the very foundation for the
offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
7
8. Section 306 IPC makes abetment of suicide punishable,
whereas the expression “abetment” derives its meaning from Section
107 IPC, which contemplates (i) instigation of a person to commit an
act, (ii) engaging in a conspiracy for the commission of the act, or (iii)
intentionally aiding the commission of the act. Unless the ingredients of
Section 107 IPC are satisfied, the offence under Section 306 IPC
cannot be said to have been made out.
9. It is now well settled that every act of harassment, humiliation,
workplace discord, or administrative disagreement cannot, by itself, be
elevated to the level of abetment of suicide. To attract criminal liability
under Section 306 IPC, there must exist a clear intention on the part of
the accused to provoke, incite, or encourage the commission of
suicide, coupled with a direct or proximate act leaving the victim with
no reasonable alternative except to take his own life.
10. In M. Mohan v. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of
Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
abetment necessarily involves a mental process of instigating or
intentionally aiding the commission of suicide and that there must be
proof of a positive act on the part of the accused intended to push the
deceased into committing suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or
ordinary discord, unaccompanied by the requisite mens rea, would not
satisfy the statutory requirement of abetment.
8
11. Likewise, in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC
144, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that ordinary reprimands,
disciplinary measures, workplace pressure, or adverse remarks made
in the course of employment, without any positive act of incitement or
intention to drive the victim to commit suicide, would not amount to
“instigation” within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. The Court
emphasized that the prosecution must establish a proximate and live
link between the conduct of the accused and the commission of
suicide.
12. Similarly, in Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2018) 13 SCC
26, and Puran Chand v. State of Haryana, (2010) 6 SCC 566, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere allegations of harassment,
absent evidence demonstrating the requisite mens rea or intentional
instigation, are insufficient to sustain a prosecution under Section 306
IPC.
13. Examined in the light of the aforesaid principles, the material
collected during the investigation falls short of disclosing the essential
ingredients constituting the offence of abetment of suicide. The
petitioners have consistently asserted that, though they were working
as Superintendent and Senior Assistant, they were not the competent
authorities empowered to sanction or refuse leave, such authority
being vested exclusively in the Executive Engineer. Significantly, the
9
investigating agency neither examined the competent departmental
authority nor collected any material relating to the departmental
hierarchy to verify or disprove the said assertion. This omission
assumes considerable significance, as one of the principal allegations
against the petitioners is that they refused to sanction leave to the
deceased. Failure to investigate the authority competent to grant leave
renders the investigation incomplete in relation to a material
circumstance directly bearing upon the culpability of the petitioners.
14. The prosecution has also placed considerable reliance upon the
alleged oral dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased
to his mother. Undoubtedly, a truthful and voluntary dying declaration
may constitute substantive evidence and can, in an appropriate case,
form the sole basis for conviction. Nevertheless, its admissibility does
not dispense with the judicial duty to examine whether it satisfies the
settled parameters governing its reliability and evidentiary value. At the
present stage, while this Court is not expected to undertake a
meticulous appreciation of evidence, the surrounding circumstances
cannot be altogether ignored. As rightly pointed out by the petitioners,
there is no material to indicate that the deceased or any member of his
family had lodged any complaint with the departmental authorities or
the police regarding the alleged harassment at any point prior to the
unfortunate incident. This circumstance, though not by itself decisive,
10
assumes relevance while evaluating whether the allegations disclose
the essential ingredients constituting the offences alleged.
15. Further, the material collected during the investigation does not
disclose any continuous course of conduct so persistent, proximate,
and compelling as to irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the
petitioners intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide or had
actively instigated or intentionally aided him in doing so. Even
assuming that the petitioners had criticized the work of the deceased or
had made insensitive or inappropriate remarks, such conduct, however
reprehensible it may appear from an administrative or moral standpoint,
would not automatically satisfy the legal requirements of “instigation” or
“intentional aid” contemplated under Section 107 IPC, unless
accompanied by the requisite mens rea and a proximate causal
connection with the act of suicide.
16. Equally, the allegations contained in the charge sheet do not
prima facie disclose the commission of an offence under Section 92(a)
of the Act. The said provision contemplates intentional insult or
intimidation with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place
within public view. The charge sheet does not disclose any specific
material indicating that the petitioners intentionally insulted or
intimidated the deceased on account of his disability in any place within
public view so as to satisfy the essential ingredients of the penal
11
provision. Mere allegations that the deceased was criticized in the
workplace or that leave was refused, without satisfying the statutory
requirements prescribed under Section 92(a) of the Act, cannot sustain
the prosecution for the said offence.
17. The principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are equally well
settled. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court possesses inherent
power to quash criminal proceedings where the continuation of such
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or
where the ends of justice so require. Likewise, in G. Sagar Suri v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (2000) 2 SCC 636, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that criminal proceedings should not be permitted to continue
where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose
the commission of any offence. The same principle has been reiterated
in Popular Muthiah v. State, (2006) 7 SCC 296, wherein it was held that
the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is intended to prevent abuse
of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
18. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the
present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
uncontroverted allegations contained in the charge sheet, even if
accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the indispensable ingredients
12
of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid necessary to constitute an
offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC.
Similarly, the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence
under Section 92(a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
are also conspicuously absent. Consequently, permitting the criminal
prosecution to continue and compelling the petitioners to undergo the
rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial, despite the absence of the
foundational ingredients of the offences alleged, would amount to an
abuse of the process of the Court.
19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. Consequently
the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.
No.84 of 2024 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant
Sessions Judge, Mancherial are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
Date: 21.07.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J
MRKR
