Telangana High Court
Sri. Nagurla Venkateshwarlu vs The State Of Telangana on 10 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 No11094 OF 2024
DATE: 10.07.2026
Between :
Mr. Nagurla Venkateshwarlu and another
... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2.
AND
The State of Telangana, rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Telangana, Hyderabad
... Respondent/Complainant
Naresh Kumar Dumala.
... Respondent/Defacto-complainant.
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.84 of 2024 of Parkal
police station of Warangal District, registered for the offences under
Sections 306 r/w 511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC“).
2. Heard Mr. H. Venugopal, learned senior Counsel appearing for
Mr. N. Mukunda Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners; and
2
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-
State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioners demanded
payment of an amount of Rs.1.20 crores from the father of the de facto
complainant, threatened him with dire consequences, compelled him to
execute certain documents under coercion, and continuously subjected
him to harassment. It is alleged that, being unable to withstand the said
harassment arising out of the monetary dispute, the father of the de
facto complainant consumed pesticide on 04.04.2024 at about 2:30
p.m. and was thereafter shifted to the hospital for treatment. Pursuant
thereto, the present crime came to be registered.
4.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioners is wholly unsustainable, as the allegations made
in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to
constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section
511 of IPC. It is contended that the allegations lack the fundamental
requirement of abetment which could have driven the victim to attempt
suicide.
4.2. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the complaint has
been lodged with an intention to convert a purely civil and commercial
3
dispute into a criminal proceeding. According to the petitioners, the
dispute between the parties arose out of business transactions and
financial dealings in connection with “M/s. Somnath Chit Fund Ltd.” and
“Orbit Chem Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.”, wherein the parties were
associated as Directors and shareholders. It is submitted that the
issues relating to their respective rights and liabilities had already been
settled by way of a settlement deed dated 04.04.2021, which was
voluntarily executed between the parties.
4.3. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that mere
demand for money arising out of a business transaction, alleged
threats, or exchange of words during a financial dispute would not
constitute instigation. Unless there is a clear mens rea and a direct or
proximate act intended to provoke or compel the victim to commit
suicide, the alleged offences cannot be attracted. It is submitted that
the complaint does not disclose any specific overt act showing that the
petitioners had intentionally created circumstances leaving the victim
with no option except to take the extreme step.
4.4. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618; Sanju
@ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 5 SCC
371; Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 Supp (3)
SCC 438; and Jangam Ravinder v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal
4
Appeal No.975 of 2013 dated 23.09.2023, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the principle emerging from the aforesaid decisions is
that mere harassment, demand for money, abusive language, or
statements made during a dispute, in the absence of a clear intention,
active instigation, or proximate act compelling the victim to commit
suicide, would not satisfy the ingredients of abetment of suicide.
Therefore, in the absence of a prima facie case against the petitioners,
continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the
process of law, and accordingly prayed for quashment of the
proceedings.
5.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and
submitted that the allegations made in the complaint and the material
collected during the course of investigation prima facie disclose
commission of the alleged offences against the petitioners/accused. It
is submitted that the complainant’s father and the accused were jointly
associated with the business of M/s. Somnath Chit Funds and, after
separation of their business affairs, disputes arose between them
regarding monetary transactions. It is alleged that accused No.1
demanded an amount of Rs.1.20 crores from the victim, claiming the
same to be due in connection with the Chit Fund business.
5.2. It is further submitted that accused No.1 called the victim for
discussions regarding the said monetary dispute, threatened him with
5
dire consequences in the event of non-payment of the amount, and
forcibly obtained his signatures on certain documents. The prosecution
further alleges that accused No.1, along with his employee accused
No.2, continuously harassed the victim by repeatedly making phone
calls, abusing him, demanding payment of money, and provoking him
with words to the effect that he should either pay the amount or die.
5.3. He would further submit that due to such continuous harassment
and mental pressure allegedly caused by the accused persons, the
victim became distressed and consumed pesticide at his residence,
thereby attempting to commit suicide. It is submitted that the victim
survived only because of timely medical intervention. Upon
consideration of the entire material collected during investigation,
sufficient material exists to show that the petitioners abetted the
victim’s attempt to commit suicide. Therefore, as the allegations involve
disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings
seeking quashment of a criminal case, prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
6. I have perused the material available on record.
7. From the allegations, it is evident that the dispute primarily arose
out of business transactions, shareholding arrangements, and payment
of amounts. In the course of such dispute, it is alleged that the
petitioners threatened the victim, obtained certain documents from him,
6
and repeatedly abused him, which ultimately resulted in the victim
consuming pesticide.
8. It is a settled position of law that, in order to constitute an
offence of abetment of suicide, the ingredients of abetment as defined
under law must be satisfied. For bringing a case within the scope of
Section 107 IPC, the essential requirement is the existence of mens
rea coupled with a positive or active act on the part of the accused
intended to push or compel the victim to commit suicide. Mere
harassment, demand for payment of money, business pressure, or
exchange of harsh words during a dispute would not, by itself, satisfy
the ingredients of abetment.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar and Sanju @
Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) has held that “instigation” means to goad,
urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage the doing of an act, and
that words uttered in anger or during a quarrel, without intending the
consequences to follow, cannot amount to instigation. Even where the
accused allegedly told the deceased to “go and die”, such words
spoken during a quarrel, without any intention or positive act, would not
constitute abetment.
7
10. In the instant case, even if the allegations are taken at their face
value, they indicate the existence of a financial dispute between the
parties. Except for the allegation that the accused demanded money
and used threatening or abusive words during the course of such
dispute, there is no specific material demonstrating any intentional act
of instigation or active aid on the part of the petitioners with the
requisite mens rea to compel the victim to commit suicide. The alleged
words attributed to the accused do not prima facie satisfy the
requirement of instigation as contemplated under Section 107 IPC.
11. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings, in the absence
of the basic ingredients constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC
read with Section 511 IPC, would amount to an abuse of the process of
law. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it
was held that the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the allegations do not disclose
commission of any cognizable offence, this Court is of the considered
view that this is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent
abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently the
proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.84
8
of 2024 pending on the file of the Parkal Police Station, Warangal, are
hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
Date: 10.07.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J
MRKR
