C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application to quash the F. I. R. in Cr. No. 95 of 2002 of Bhimavaram n Town police Station registered under Section 306 ipc. ( 2 ) ON 16-9-2002 the proprietor of Sri krishna Modern Guest House, Bhimavaram, gave a report to the Police that a person by name V. Venkateswara Rao, who tookaroom in his lodge, in an attempt to commit suicide, drank pesticide and was found lying in the cot with difficulty in breathing, and a suicide note on the table that nobody is responsible for his death, but was put to a great loss by the petitioners, and with request to handover his body to his brother, who is working in the state Bank of India, Bhimavaram Branch, and so he took the said Venkateswara Rao to government Hospital for treatment, and that the Doctor pronounced the said venkateswara Rao dead, and that the said venkateswara Rao must have committed suicide due to financial problems. The said report was registered as Cr. No. 95 of 2002 under Section 306 IPC showing both the petitioners as accused. Police took up investigation, arrested the petitioners and sent them to judicial remand on 19-9-2002. After they were enlarged on bail, petitioners filed this petition to quash the FIR against them. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even if all the allegations in the FIR are taken to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioners, and so the FIR registered against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. ( 4 ) IN the suicide note left by him, deceased only stated that the petitioners have caused heavy loss to him. The remand report prepared by the Investigating Officer, while sending the petitioners to judicial remand, shows that the deceased, as a commission agent, used to collect coconuts from various ryots and used to sell coconuts to coconut merchants including the petitioners, and since the petitioners used to ask the deceased to supply more coconuts, being unable to cope up with their demand for supply of coconuts, the deceased committed suicide. Even assuming that what all is stated in the remand report is true, no offence, much less ah offence under Section 306ipc, can be said to have been committed by the petitioners, because petitioners cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to have abetted the suicide of. the deceased by merely asking him to supply more coconuts. For an act to be an abetment , there must be (i) instigation by the abettor, or (ii) conspiracy between the person who committed the offence and the abettor, or (iii) intentional aid must have been given by the abettor to person committing the offence. Since neither conspiracy nor intentional aid was there by the petitioners in the suicide of the deceased, it should be seen if there was instigation by the petitioners to the deceased to commit suicide. instigation means active suggestion or stimulation to act. Petitioners asking the deceased to supply more coconuts, can in no circumstances be taken as instigation to commit suicide. Thus, none of the ingredients to constitute abetment by the petitioners to the deceased to commit suicide are there in this case, and no offence, much less an offence under Section 306 IPC, can be said to have been committed by the petitioners for the suicide committed by the deceased. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the petition is allowed and the FIR in Cr. No. 95 of 2002 of Bhimavaram ii Town Police Station is quashed.