ORDER Heard Sri Srinivas Reddy and Sri Mohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in both these Criminal Petitions and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The main ground of attack in these Criminal Petitions is that even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken on their face value, the said allegations do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter in short referred to as "IPC". The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decisions Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal, 1. 2005 (2) ALT(Crl.) 125 (SC) = 2005 (2) Supreme 300 , P. Ram Murthy v. Station House Officer, Dhone Police Station, Kurnool District, 2002 (6) ALT 633 , Swamy Prahladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438, G. Laxmaiah v. State of A.P., 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 97 (A.P.), Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1996 Crl.L.J. 894 (SC), V. Shankaraiah v. State of A.P., 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 470 (A.P.) and V. Adinarayana v. State of A.P., 2000 Crl.L.J. 1182. 3. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the allegations made in the charge sheet and would contend that all other evidentiary details which predominantly are questions of fact cannot be gone into at this stage and these aspects may have to be established by letting in appropriate evidence. At any rate, the aspects like question of instigation or intentional aiding etc., can be established at the stage of trial and hence the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "Code". 4. Heard the Counsel. 5. Crl.P.No.1279/2005 is filed by A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 under Section 482 of the Code praying for quashing of proceedings in P.R.C.No.7/2005 on the file of Special Mobile Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. Likewise, Crl.P.No.1437/2005 is filed by A-3 praying for the quashing of the aforesaid proceedings. 6. Section 306 IPC reads as hereunder: Abetment of suicide : If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 6. Section 306 IPC reads as hereunder: Abetment of suicide : If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Before taking up further discussion it may be appropriate to have a look at the contents of the charge sheet, which are as hereunder: "The Accused Nos.1 to 3 are residents of Tenali while A-4 and A-5 are actually residents of Jonnalagadda (V) and A-6 and A-7 are residents of Guntur. A-1 and A-6 are the daughters of A-2 and A-3. A-5 is the son of A-2's brother, A-6 is the husband of A-7. Thus all the accused are closely related to each other. The deceased was serving in military since 9 years prior to 14-9-2002. The deceased is the son of L.W.1 and brother of L.W.2. L.W.3 is the son-in-law and L.W.4 is the brother-in-law of L.W.1. L.W.5 is the youngest sister of the deceased. About 2 years prior to 14-9-2002, the deceased married A-1. The deceased and A-1 were cordial for some time. Later there arose disputes between the deceased and A-1, because A-1 and L.W.1 were not having cordial relationship. The deceased came on 20 days leave from 26-8-2002 to 14-9-2002 from Military service. A-1 was then carrying 8th month pregnancy on 5-9-1002. A-1 was taken on the two wheeler motor cycle to her paternal house by L.W.2 and left her there at Tenali for medical check up. For this A-2 found fault with the deceased and abused the deceased on phone. Though the deceased went to the house of A-2, his wife i.e., A-4 did not follow him to his house at Jonnalagadda. Hence the deceased returned home asking A-1 to come to his house on the next day, but, A-1 did not go there. On the other hand, on 11-9-2002 A-1 gave a report to Guntur Taluk P.S. about harassment by the deceased and L.Ws.1 and 2. The elders of both sides held Panchayat on 13-9-2002 and some how settled the matter by taking their compromise letter, and later they were all asked to go away to their house. While going to Jonnalagadda the deceased got down the bus at Gorantla even without notice of L.W.1. The elders of both sides held Panchayat on 13-9-2002 and some how settled the matter by taking their compromise letter, and later they were all asked to go away to their house. While going to Jonnalagadda the deceased got down the bus at Gorantla even without notice of L.W.1. and later telephoned to his house that he was coming home and asked L.W.1 to keep his clothes etc., ready to enable him to go away to his Military duty on expiry of leave. But, he did not return home on that night. Hence, L.W.1 gave a report in Guntur Taluk P.S. about missing of the deceased. L.W.12 registered it as a case in Cr.No.285/02 under Section Man Missing of Guntur Taluk P.S. and investigated into and examined L.Ws.1 to 4. On 15-9-2002 the deceased was found lying dead in an uncompleted house in Venigandla of Pedakakni Mandal, with a poison bottle nearby him. Hence L.W.1 again gave a further report to L.W. 12 about the death of the deceased stating that on 12-9-2002 evening A-1 to A-7 went to the house of the deceased and made galata against the deceased and his family members openly and gave a report against them in Guntur Taluk P.S. and caused insult to him, as a result the deceased had taken some poison and committed suicide. So, L.W.12 altered the Section of Law to Section 306 r/w.34 IPC "and continued investigation. L.W.12 inspected the scene where the body of the deceased found in the presence of L.Ws. 7 and 8 under mahajar and seized the identity card, his D.L.," letter written by him to the A-1 and L.W.2, leave certificate, letters dt.22-2-2001 and 12-8-2001 written by A-1 to the deceased along with other belongings of the deceased. L.W.2 identified the handwritings of the deceased. L.W.12 sent both the letters written by the deceased to handwriting expert along with specific handwritings of the deceased. The expert opined that both the letters were written by the deceased himself. L.W.12 held inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of L.Ws.7 to 9 and examined L.Ws.5 and 6 also and forwarded the dead body of the deceased for P.M. Examination through L.W.11. L.W.10 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased preserved the viscera for analysis. L.W.12 held inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of L.Ws.7 to 9 and examined L.Ws.5 and 6 also and forwarded the dead body of the deceased for P.M. Examination through L.W.11. L.W.10 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased preserved the viscera for analysis. Based on the R.F.S.L. report No.VJA/POX/1193/02, dated 28-10-2002 L.W.10 gave his final opinion that the deceased died due to Organophosphate. The accused obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and L.W.12 arrested A-1 to A-7 on 6-10-2002 and released them on bail after obtaining the sureties. Thus the accused having insulted the deceased with common intention and drove him to the extent of his committing suicide unable to bear the insult by taking poison rendered themselves liable for punishment U/s.306 r/w.34 IPC. Hence the charge." 7. The contents of the charge sheet referred to supra are self-explanatory and several of the details which had been narrated, which according to the Prosecution had resulted in the commission of suicide by the deceased, are all aspects to be decided at the appropriate stage after letting in evidence. Several of the decisions referred to supra deal with the ingredients which are to be satisfied to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC and the other aspects relating to the said provision. The main ground of attack is that even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken on -their face value, they do not disclose an offence under Section 306 IPC. The contention that there is no specific allegation that the accused had instigated or intentionally aided the deceased to commit the suicide had not been specifically averred, may not be a sustainable contention for the reason that specifically it was stated that on 12-9-2002, A-1 to A-7 went to the house of the deceased and made galata on the deceased and his family members and gave report in Taluk Police Station. In the light of the allegations made in the charge sheet it cannot be said that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners may amount to abuse of process of Law and inasmuch as this is the only ground which had been raised and argued in elaboration this Court is thoroughly satisfied that it would be just to give liberty to the petitioners to raise this ground also at the appropriate stage by way of defence. At any rate, it is not a fit case to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Code at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are bound to fail and they shall stand dismissed.