Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash Suicide Abetment Case Against Advocate & Journalist
The Telangana High Court was considering the criminal petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
While noting that the allegations levelled in the complaint prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence under Section 108 of the BNS, the Telangana High Court has refused to quash the abetment to suicide case registered against a journalist and an advocate.
The High Court was considering the criminal petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), by two accused seeking to quash the proceedings in a case registered under Section 108 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The Single Bench of Justice J. Sreenivas Rao held, “The allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioners prima facie disclose a cognizable offence under Section 108 of the BNS and the Investigating Officer has seized the suicide note of the accused of the deceased and the investigation is under progress.”
Advocate B. Pavan represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Jithender Rao Veeramalla represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The respondent complainant alleged in the complaint that she was blessed with two daughters and one son and was earning her livelihood through a flower business. Her elder daughter (deceased) had been pursuing M.Sc and the second accused was her sister-in-law, whose husband died due to HIV/AIDS. In the month of August 2025, her deceased daughter informed that the first accused was in love with her and intended to marry her. At that stage, she informed her deceased daughter that the father of the first accused had died due to HIV/AIDS, and she apprehended that the first accused might also be infected. Hence, she insisted on conducting an HIV test before proceeding with the marriage and accordingly got tested, both accused and her deceased daughter. The test results revealed that the accused was HIV positive, whereas her deceased daughter tested negative.
Thereafter, her deceased daughter changed her decision and refused to marry the accused. Due to this, the first accused developed a grudge. It was alleged that he entered the house and injected his own blood into the body of her deceased daughter using a syringe, with the intention of infecting her with HIV. It was alleged that the petitioner/sixth accused/, who is a journalist with Vedhan Media TV conducted an interview with the second accused and her younger (third accused) in the presence of the petitioner/ seventh accused, a practising advocate. During the said interview, they allegedly made defamatory and derogatory statements, and assassinated her deceased daughter’s character. It was alleged that her deceased daughter was subjected to obscene and defamatory publicity on social media, and due to such posts and comments, she suffered severe mental distress.
On April 10, 2026, her deceased daughter left her house and went to the residence of her grandmother, where she committed suicide by hanging herself from a ceiling fan using a chunni. After the incident, a five-page suicide note and a selfie video recorded by the deceased were found. It was revealed that the fourth accused had instigated the first accused by stating that the deceased would not be given in marriage to him, and advised him to take her to a temple or church and marry her, assuring him that all issues would be settled after six months. The deceased held the above-mentioned persons responsible for her death. It was in such circumstances that the case came to be registered for the offence under Section 108, read with 3(5) of the BNS.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that there were specific allegations levelled in the complaint that the second and third accused gave an interview on Vedhan Media TV of the petitioner/ sixth accused in the presence of the petitioner/seventh accused, wherein they made defamatory statements against the deceased and assassinated her character. The said interview was uploaded on a YouTube channel and circulated on social media. Thereafter, based on the said reason, the deceased committed suicide.
Reference was made to the judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others (2021), wherein it was emphasised that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and Courts should not interdict investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR.
The Bench was of the view that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie attracted the ingredients of the offences under Sections 108 read with 3(5) of the BNS, and as the investigation was still in progress, the petitioner was not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at the threshold.
Thus, finding no ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused 6 and 7, the Bench dismissed the criminal petition.
Cause Title: Seeloju Shiva Kumar v. The State of Telangana (Criminal Petitioner Nos. 5635 and 5738 of 2026)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates B. Pavan, Kasoju Mahesh Chary
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Jithender Rao Veeramalla