ORDER These two criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 CLP.C by accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C No. 8 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, wherein the petitioners were charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC. 2. The respondent filed a case in Cr.No. 67 of 2007 before Bhimavaram II Town Police Station alleging that the deceased Gujjulu Mallikarajuna Rao is native of Bhujabalapatnam Village, Kaikaluru MandaI, Krishna District and residing at Durgapuram, Bhimavaram Town. Eleven years ago, the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with A-5 G. Jyothi as per Christian religious customs and both of them led their conjugal life for a period of ten years and during their wedlock they were blessed with two children. Two years ago, the deceased went to Nagapur for his livelihood, leaving his wife and children with A-3 and A-4 to Durgapuram and stayed there for about one year and later returned to Bhimavaram. Meanwhile, A-5 developed intimacy with A-1, A-2 and A-6 with the active support and co-operation of A-3 and A-4, which resulted in some disputes between the deceased and A-5, A-5 demanded the deceased for divorce and rest of the accused also joined their tongue with her and threatened the deceased to do away him, if he does not give divorce to A-5. When the harassment of the accused went peak, the deceased could not bear the same and ultimately determined to make an end to his life by any means and procured pesticide poison and consumed the same at his house on 27-4-2007 at about 11 p.m., be leaving a death note underneath the seat of his scooter, mentioning the reasons for making his life end and informed his brother about leaving of death note underneath the seat of his scooter and died on the intervening right of 27/28-4-2007 at about 1.00 a.m. On a complaint given by the mother of the deceased, the above said casein Cr.No. 67 of 2007 was registered by the police. 3. 3. The learned counsel appearing for A-1 and A-2 would contend that except stating that A-1, A - 2 and A -6 harassed the wife of the deceased A-5 to develop illicit intimacy with them, no specific overt act was alleged against the petitioners to establish that they have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. To constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC the accused should instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Since the suicide note does not disclose about the participation of the accused in abetting the deceased to commit suicide, the accused cannot be charged for the offence under Section 306 IPC. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in V. Shankaraiah v. State of A.P. (1) 2002 (1) ALT 470. This Court in Crl.P.Nos. 864 and 867 of 2008 decided an identical issue by order, dated 15-7-2010, considering various decisions rendered by the Apex Court as well as this court holding that as per Section 107 IPC. 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 things, 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 IPC 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. 4. The Supreme Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (2) (1994) 3 SCC 569 at para 106 held as follows: "In order to bring a person abetting the doing of a thing, under anyone of the clauses enumerated under Section 107, it is not only necessary to prove that the person who has abetted has taken part in the steps of the transactions but also in some way or other he has been connected with those steps of the transactions which are criminal. The offence of abetment depends upon the intention of the person who abets, and not upon the act-which is actually done by the person whom he abets". 5. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is nowhere alleged that the petitioners accused Nos. 1 and 2 prior to or at the time of commission of the suicide did anything in order to facilitate the commission of the suicide. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC Hence, the initiation of entire proceedings against the petitioners herein is abuse of process of law and accordingly, the impugned proceedings in P.R. CNo.8 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District pending against the petitioners accused Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, the criminal petitions are allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in P.R.CNo. 8 of 2008 on the file of n Additional J.M.F.C Bhimavaram are accordingly quashed.