ORDER The petitioner seeks for quashing of First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.78 of 2010 on the file of Ulindakonda Police Station, Kurnool District. The petitioner is the Principal of Karunakar Reddy Engineering College. One Mogili Maruthi died on 29.09.2010 by drowning in Handri river. Considering that the deceased Mogili Maruthi committed suicide and that the petitioner was responsible for the commission of suicide by Maruthi, father of Maruthi, who is the 2nd respondent, had lodged a complaint to the Police. The complaint was registered as FIR in Crime No.78 of 2010. The petitioner seeks for quashment of the same. 2. Sri K.Rathanga Pani, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997 and the Government orders thereon make it incumbent upon every parent of the student to file affidavits declaring that the student would not indulge in ragging. A proforma affidavit in annexure II is to be filed in this context. The orders and the directions of the Government are mandatory. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the affidavits are not filed within the time provided under the Act and the Government orders, university is likely to take action against the college and its officials, so much so, the colleges insist upon filing of the affidavits within time. 3. It is his further case that although the time provided by Karunakar Reddy Engineering College for filing the affidavits had expired, Maruthi and the other students had not produced the affidavits. On 29.09.2010, the petitioner who is the Principal of the college did not allow Maruthi and others to the college on the ground that they did not produce the affidavits. It would appear that the deceased who was a student of the III year B.Tech along with other students, went to Handri river. When he died, the father of the deceased considered that the death of the deceased was on account of the ill treatment given to him by the Principal of the college and that the Principal of the college therefore committed the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. for the death of the deceased. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew inference from the inquest report. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew inference from the inquest report. Column No.XV of the inquest report reads that the deceased was drowned in the water on account of misfortune and that the death was not a case of suicide. Smt.Vasudha Nagaraj, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the inquest report is not worthy to be accepted. She pointed out that none of the friends of the deceased Maruthi who accompanied him to the river, was examined as a witness at the time of inquest. She further contended that although the father of the deceased Maruthi lodged a complaint on 29.09.2010 and although the report was registered as FIR on 29.09.2010, the inquest did not speak about the complaint. I regret to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, for the very purport of the inquest is that it relates to FIR in Crime No.78 of 2010. FIR 78 of 2010 is in deed the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent against the Principal of the college. It is not as though the inquest report did not speak about the complaint by the 2nd respondent. 5. However, what is important to be examined is whether the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out from the complaint. To constitute offence under Section 306 I.P.C., instigation, aid or any other element of abetment as defined under Section 107 I.P.C. is made out. The complaint reads that the Principal abused the deceased in filthy language and sent him out of the college for not producing the affidavits under the Anti Ragging Act and that the deceased committed suicide on account of the action of the Principal. It was not even averred that the Principal instigated or otherwise abetted the deceased to commit suicide. If the Principal sends out a student from the college for not complying with the rules of the college and if the student commits suicide, I am afraid that it cannot be considered as an offence on the part of the Principal as instigating the student to commit suicide. The inquest report does not even show that the deceased was committing suicide and that he committed suicide indeed. There is no evidence what so ever to consider that the death of the deceased was on account of abetment .on the part of the petitioner to commit suicide. The inquest report does not even show that the deceased was committing suicide and that he committed suicide indeed. There is no evidence what so ever to consider that the death of the deceased was on account of abetment .on the part of the petitioner to commit suicide. 6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent placed reliance upon Didigam Bikshapathi v. State of A.P. (1) AIR 2008 SC 527 In that case, a victim committed suicide on account of insult and humiliation by the utterances of the accused. The suicide. note left by the victim referred to the background in which the victim committed suicide. There were other allegations against the accused for other acts and role played by him in the commission of suicide as referred to in the note. The Supreme Court considered that it was not a fit case to quash the case at the FIR stage. 7. Apart from the fact that there was no suicide note in the present case, it is not even made out that the death of the deceased was a case of suicide. It was perhaps a case of accident as stated in the inquest report. Primarily where there is no evidence that the death of the deceased was due to suicide, I see no reason to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The proceedings against the petitioner are in deed devoid of any criminal flavour and are liable to be quashed. 8. The Criminal Petition, accordingly, is allowed. C.C.No.78 of 2010 against the petitioner is hereby quashed.