ORDER These two petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in P.R.CNo.48 of 2007 are filed by the petitioners who are arrayed as A.2 and Al in the said P.R.C 2. The petitioners were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C A2isthe brother of A.1; A.1 is the wife of the deceased and daughter-in-law of the complainant. The third respondent-de facto complainant lodged a com plaint alleging that his deceased son-Ashok Kumar Joshi committed suicide at his residence by hanging with a fan on 12.5.2007 at 0835 hours and that the reason behind the suicide is that the wife of the deceased (A.1) has family disputes with his son. On 1.3.2007 A.1 left the house of the deceased and on 5.5.2007 she came along with her brother-A.2 to the house in the absence of the deceased, broke open the lock and took away the original certificates of the deceased. Though the deceased immediately reported the matter to the Police of Saroomagar, no action was taken. It was stated that the deceased felt humiliation due to the immoral character of his wife-A.1 who was maintaining extra marital relationship with A.3 and also felt embarrassment when his wife-A.1 took his educational certificates, which are essential for his career and under such mental depression he had ended his life. On 12.5.2007 the deceased wrote a suicide note, which reads as under: "It was to waste complaint with police station regarding my certificates as my wife Meena took it from here the same was given complaint in Saroomagar Police Station, no action was taken by them. Nothing should be given to Meena which belongs to me after death. As she has an illegal connection with boyfriend Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, C/o. Radha Enterprises, Kompally, now I am ending my life. One should take care of my father Ashok Kumar Joshi." Basing upon the said complaint, police after making investigation laid the charge sheet against the petitioners and also A.3 for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 and A.2 would contend that from a reading of the suicide note, no specific overt act was alleged against the petitioners which forced the deceased in committing suicide except stating that A.1 was behaving in immoral manner having sexual connections with A.3 and that she took the educational certificates of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 and A.2 would contend that from a reading of the suicide note, no specific overt act was alleged against the petitioners which forced the deceased in committing suicide except stating that A.1 was behaving in immoral manner having sexual connections with A.3 and that she took the educational certificates of the deceased. To constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. the accused should instigate the deceased to commit suicide, but the suicide note discloses that the deceased committed suicide due to mental depression and therefore, the case do not fall under any of the ingredients under Section 107 I.P.C. and therefore, the charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decisions in Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree and another (1) 2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 124 (SC) = 2009 (1) SCJ 378 = AIR 2009 SC 923 ; Kailashi Bai v. Aarti Arya and another (2) 2009 (2) ALT (Crl.) 317 (SC) = 2009 (1) SCJ 616 = 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 714 (SC); V. Shankaraiah v. State of A.P. (3) 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 470 (A.P.); Alka Grewal v. State of M.P. (4) 2000 Cri.L.J. 672; Balagoni Balaraj Goud and another v. State of A.P. and another (5) 2007 (3) ALT (Crl.) 312 (AP.); and T. Brahmanandam v. State of A.P. (6) 2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 141 (AP.). 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent-complainant contends that the deceased was harassed by A.1 with her immoral manner and the deceased vexed with the adamant behdviour of A.1 as she had not returned the educational certificates of the deceased and therefore, the deceased committed suicide disgusted with the life. Thus A.1 indirectly abetted the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the impugned proceedings at the initial stage. 5. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration in these petitions is whether the sets of events indicated in the suicidal note would constitute an offence against the petitioners punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.? 6. 5. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration in these petitions is whether the sets of events indicated in the suicidal note would constitute an offence against the petitioners punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.? 6. The Supreme Court in Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal (7) 2005 (2) ALT (Crl.) 125 (SC) = 2005 (5) SCJ 813 had an occasion to consider the suicide note to implicate the persons mentioned in the suicide note as accused, wherein it was held that in the absence of any willful act or incidence or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide and in the absence of any contents in the suicide note to make out offence against the accused which ultimately instigated or resulted in the committal of suicide by the accused, registration of a crime only on the basis of the suicide note without any factual foundation and the prosecution initiated against the accused are liable to be quashed. Following the same, this Court quashed the prosecution initiated on the basis of suicidal note in T. Brahmanandam (6 supra). In Kailashi Bai (2 supra) as the suicide note of the husband disclosed that the accused-wife used to harass the deceased and subjected him to mental cruelty as she belonged to higher caste and she did not like association of deceased with his parents and relatives, the High Court quashed the proceedings initiated on that basis as the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. were not established. On further appeal, the Supreme Court while envisaging three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, held as a whole and on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement and considering the complaint allegations do not constitute the offence, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings, and accordingly upheld the decision of the High Court in quashing the complaint. This Court in V. Shankaraiah (3 supra) held that the suicide is not an offence obviously because the person that committed suicide is not available to undergo the trial and punishment, but abetment of suicide and its attempt, are made offences under Sections 306 and 309 I.P.C. respectively. This Court in V. Shankaraiah (3 supra) held that the suicide is not an offence obviously because the person that committed suicide is not available to undergo the trial and punishment, but abetment of suicide and its attempt, are made offences under Sections 306 and 309 I.P.C. respectively. Since there was no averment in the charge sheet or material on record to show that the petitioner-accused either induced the deceased to commit suicide or aided the suicide of the deceased, the accused was held not liable to be charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and this Court accordingly quashed the proceedings. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Alka Grewal (4 supra) had an occasion to consider the suicide note written by the husband who committed suicide. In the said note, he stated under what circumstances he committed suicide. It was stated therein that the accused was behaving in immoral manner having sexual connections with Dhanraj and on objection by the husband, her mother was creating a scene and declaring that this was the free-will of the girl and he was nobody to object. All this had pained him and in order to avoid all these unfortunate circumstances he ended his life. Considering the said allegations, it was observed that the husband was depressed and took such a decision, but how much he was so depressed by the immoral character of the wife, is different from person to person, and that in the absence of any other material, the suicide note and the letter written by the deceased are insufficient to infer that the wife abetted suicide. She may be cause for the suicide, but not the abettor and holding so, quashed the proceedings. 7. As per Section 107 I.P.C., which defines abetment, any of the three essential acts has to be committed by the abettor. They are; (1) instigating any person to do that thing; or (2) engaging with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in furtherance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 to Section 107 I.P.C. also says that whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that Act. 8. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is nowhere alleged that the petitioners-accused 1 and 2 prior to or at the time of the commission of the suicide did anything in order to facilitate the commission of the suicide. Therefore, they cannot be charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. Hence the initiation of entire proceedings against the petitioners herein is abuse of process of law and accordingly, the impugned proceedings as against the petitioners are quashed. 9. The Criminal Petitions are accordingly allowed.