ORDER 1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has filed this petition seeking the relief of quashing the criminal proceedings pertaining to the sessions case in S.C. No. 206 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I Salem. 2. On the strength of a complaint lodged by the second respondent, Mr. M. Sekar who is none other than the father of the deceased boy (Srinivasan) the first respondent herein has registered a case in Crime No. 363 of 2011 on 19.6.2011 against the petitioner and three others alleging that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 3. This petitioner has been working as Tamil teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Panamarathapatty, Salem District. He has been arrayed as third accused in the above said case whereas (1) Senthil (2) Manivannan and (3) Elangovan have been arrayed as A1, A2 and A4 respectively. They have also been working as maths teacher, physics teacher and chemistry teacher respectively in the above said school. 4. The deceased boy Srinivasan aged about 17 years, who is none other than the sons of the second respondent was studying in 12th standard in the above said school viz., The Government Higher Secondary School, Panamarathapatty, Salem District. It is alleged that the petitioner along with the other accused had abetted the deceased Srininvasan to go to the extreme end of committing suicide. 5. The second respondent in his complaint has stated that after coming back from school 17.6.2011 till his son had been whisparing till night that he was not able to understand the method of teaching of the teachers. If questioned they threat him. Till 1.00 a.m., in the night he was writing something and that he (complainant) was under the impression that he would be doing his home work as usual. On the next day i.e., on 18.6.2011 when they were leaving for work, the deceased was found sleeping. When the complainant was coming back to home at 2.00 p.m., for lunch, he was informed that his son had committed suicide by hanging. In fact he was not having any bad habit and did not have any bad association. Since the reasons for hanging were not known as per their caste and customs the body of the deceased was buried. In fact he was not having any bad habit and did not have any bad association. Since the reasons for hanging were not known as per their caste and customs the body of the deceased was buried. On the next day i.e., on 19.6.2011 the complainant was able to find a suicidal note running about 7 pages written by the deceased and another letter seemed to have been written by all the students to the Headmaster of his school. Only under this circumstance the second respondent had lodged the complaint before the first respondent police. He has also alleged that since his son had questioned their teachers that he and other students were not able to understand the teaching method he was put under threat and dire consequence and therefore, he had gone to the extreme end of committing suicide. 6. After the completion of the investigation the first respondent police had lodged a final report before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Salem and after completion of the preliminary enquiry the case was committed to the Court of sessions and now pending trial in S.C. No. 206 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I Salem. 7. Now the petitioner and the other accused have been facing charge under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, the petitioner herein being the third accused have approached this Court by way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code details that abetment of suicide. It reads as follows; “Section 306 - 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.” To constitute the offence of abetment of suicide the following ingredients have to be established, i) that any person committed suicide ii) that such a commission of suicide by consequence of abetment. iii) that the abetment was made by the accused. 8. To bring home the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC, the first information relating to the incident of suicide must disclose; a) that the victim of the offence committed suicide. b) that the accused abetted the commission of the said offence. c) such abetment be one under Section 107 of IPC. 9. 8. To bring home the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC, the first information relating to the incident of suicide must disclose; a) that the victim of the offence committed suicide. b) that the accused abetted the commission of the said offence. c) such abetment be one under Section 107 of IPC. 9. It may also be more relevant to take the assistance of Section 107 of IPC. Chapter V, of Indian Penal Coe deals with abetment. Section 107 of IPC reads as follows; “Section 107 - A person abets the doing of a thing, who – First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages 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 pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation - 1. A person, who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be. done, is said to instigate the doing of that things. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation - 2. 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 10. Section 107 of IPC which contains the definition of abetment has three clauses, and if an act of a person falls within the purview of any of them it would amount to abetment. A person abets the doing of a thing who intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. The scope of the word ‘aids’ has been clarified in explanation 2. The said explanation does not say what would or would not amount to “intentionally aids”. A person abets the doing of a thing who intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. The scope of the word ‘aids’ has been clarified in explanation 2. The said explanation does not say what would or would not amount to “intentionally aids”. It only explains what is meant by aiding simpliciter. This means that an act which merely amounts to aiding the commission of an offence is not abetment. The aiding must snow-ball into “intentionally aiding” the doing of a thing. The commission of the act must be the dominant intention of the person who aid it. Then only it can be said that he “intentionally” aided it. If there is community of interest between the aiding persons and the one who commits the offence, there is possibility to draw the inference that the dominant intention was to aid the doing of that particular act. If the person only knows or has only the reason to believe that his act would facilitate the commission of offence, it cannot be said that his dominant intention was there. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sai Ram v. State AIR 1975 SC 175 : (1975) SCC (Cr) 87 followed in Hemanta Kumar v. State 1993 CrLJ 82 (Cal). 11. On coming to the instant case on hand it is manifested from the records that the petitioner (A3) and other persons were taking classes for the 12th standard C Section, in which the deceased Srinivasan was studying. On 15.6.2011 the first accused Senthil had taken maths class for C Section students. Since his teaching was not understandable, Srinivasan (since deceased) had requested to teach the same again as the other students were not able to understand. But the first accused Senthil had threatened and starred at Srinivasan and asked him to copy what was written on board. That on 16.6.2011 the witness Jeevaanantham a classmate of the deceased Srinivasan had prepared a petition to the Headmaster wherein all the students had signed and the said petition was shown to the second accused Manivannan in that evening. But the first accused Senthil had threatened and starred at Srinivasan and asked him to copy what was written on board. That on 16.6.2011 the witness Jeevaanantham a classmate of the deceased Srinivasan had prepared a petition to the Headmaster wherein all the students had signed and the said petition was shown to the second accused Manivannan in that evening. After gone through that petition the second accused had told the other accused and spoken ill about Srinivasan, On 17.06.2011 when Srinivasan (since deceased) was writing.his physics test the second accused had insulted and threatened him by saying and this petitioner (A3) had also, threatened Srinivasan saying, It is also revealed that this petitioner along with the second accused had threatened Srinivasan by saying practical and the fourth accused had also threatened Srinivasan by saying 12. The case of the prosecution is that Srinivasan (since deceased) at his tender age, who was solely relying upon his marks of his +2 examination for his future career was not able to bear the harassment of accused 1 to 4 by their insulting and threatening words, lost all his hopes and decided to end his life by committing suicide. The prosecuting agency has also stated in the charge sheet that the said Srinivansan had committed suicide by hanging on 18.6.2011 between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. at their house and therefore, the petitioner and other accused had abetted the deceased who committed suicide due to mental torture. 13. From the averments of FIR a question is arisen as to “whether the avernments of the alleged suicidal note said to have been written by the deceased Srinivasan are sufficient to constitute the offence of abetment of committing suicide under Section 306 of IPC?” 14. This Court has perused the statements of the co-students which were recorded by the investigating officer during the course of his investigation under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. In his complaint the second respondent who is the father of the deceased Srinivasan has stated that the body of his son was buried in accordance with their caste custom. But it is crystallised from the records that the body of the deceased Srinivasan was cremated. The postmortem report which is tagged along with other materials reveals that the postmortem was conducted by one Dr. But it is crystallised from the records that the body of the deceased Srinivasan was cremated. The postmortem report which is tagged along with other materials reveals that the postmortem was conducted by one Dr. K. Gokula Ramanan, Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medicial College, Salem - 1 on 21.6.2011 at the burial ground itself. He says in his report that he had found ashes of the alleged person; found greyish black ash with half burnt pieces of bones spreaded over an area of 8 feet. He has also stated that from the available ash and piece of half burnt bones, the age could not be estimated, as age estimation requires full contour of the bones. 15. In order to dispose of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the postmortem report may be of trivial in nature but still it appear vital because the first information was not lodged by the complainant who is the father of the deceased before the first respondent on 18.6.2011. But it was lodged only on 19.6.2011 and it shows that it could have been lodged after confabulation. 16. In this connection Mr. K. Selvaraj the learned counsel appealing for the petitioner has adverted to that since there was no complaint whatsoever in respect of the death of the student (Srinivasan) his parents, his brother and other relatives had not given any complaint against anybody even before the cremation work, was taken place. In fact they had burnt the body and completed the cremation on 18.6.2011 itself. 17. During the course of his arguments he has drawn the attention of this Court to the anticipatory bail order granted in favour of the petitioner by this Court on 22.6.2011 in Crl. O.P. No. 14204 of 2011. In this connection he would submit that this Court in the above said order has also observed that no material was available to show that the petitioner had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. 18. In paragraph no. 4, 5 and 6 of the anticipatory bail order dated 22.6.2011 in Crl. O.P. No. 14204 of 2011, this Court has observed as follows; “4. This Court considered the submissions and perused the suicidal note. 5. 18. In paragraph no. 4, 5 and 6 of the anticipatory bail order dated 22.6.2011 in Crl. O.P. No. 14204 of 2011, this Court has observed as follows; “4. This Court considered the submissions and perused the suicidal note. 5. This Court feels that though the deceased is having greivance against the school teachers and thereby given a letter to the Head Master of the school, the deceased need not have committed suicide due to subsequent happenings. It is not known why the deceased has chosen to commit suicide. Though he expressed so many things in his suicidal note, it shows only the immaturity of the boy. 6. Considering the fact that there is no material to show that the petitioner had instigated the deceased to commit suicide and as the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are not attracted, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail.” 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the only allegation made by the prosecution is that when the deceased had requested the maths teacher to teach maths slowly, the mathematics teacher scolded him that he should write what is taught in the class. Enraged over the same the deceased along with some students wrote a complaint to the Headmaster of the school and when the said complaint was about to be handed over to the Headmaster the physics teacher had intervened and scolded the boy stating that he should not lodge any complaint against the teachers and at that time the Tamil teacher had also intervened and advised the boy that the students should not lodge any complaint against the teachers and that they should abstain from giving complaint against the teachers, otherwise, they could not come up in their life. He has also argued that the chemistry teacher had also intervened and advised the deceased. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted further, that the registration of the case under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner as well as against the other accused are a total misconception of law and is liable to be quashed. He has also maintained that the petitioner has been working in the said school for about 14 years without giving any room for any complaint whatsoever and he has also earned good reputation among the students. He has also maintained that the petitioner has been working in the said school for about 14 years without giving any room for any complaint whatsoever and he has also earned good reputation among the students. Excepting the present complaint no complaint was earlier given against this petitioner by anyone of the students of the school and therefore, the registration of the present case against him had tarnished his image and degraded his reputation among other teachers, parents and students. 21. In support of his contention Mr. K. Selvaraj the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following decisions; 1. Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another (2010) 3 SCC (Cr) 1048 : 2010-IV-LLJ-849 2. Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Another (1995) SCC (Cr) 943 : 3. Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. AIR 2002 SC 1998 : (2002) SCC (Cr) 1141 : 4. Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2010 SC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cr) 917 : (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl) 410 5. Kailashi Bai v. Aarti Arya and Another (2010) 1 SCC (Cr) 1117 : 6. S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another (2011) 2 SCC (Cr) 465 : (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 547 7. M. Mohand v. State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police AIR 2011 SC 1238 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cr) 1 : (2011) 4 MLJ (Crl) 273 22. In the first decision viz., Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another (supra) while speaking on behalf of the Division Bench the Hon’ble His Lordship Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar has observed that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or abet the suicide must be proved. In paragraph No. 10 His Lordship has observed that: “We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.” 23. In paragraph No. 11 it has been observed in the following manner; “In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of, the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find, is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf.” 24. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Another (supra) there was sexual jealousy between the appellant and the deceased during the quarrel the appellant allegedly remarking to the deceased to go and die. Thereafter, the deceased went to home and committed suicide. Under this circumstance the Apex Court has held that; “Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. Besides the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the appellant.” 25. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another (supra) the Apex Court has held that; “abetment, involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another (supra) the Apex Court has held that; “abetment, involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act; or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that; he committed suicide. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.” 26. In M. Mohand v. State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (supra) it has been observed that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. There should be clear mens rea to commit offence under Section 306 IPC. 27. Mr. K. Selvaraj the learned counsel for the petitioner has also canvassed that the petitioner along with other teachers had only advised the deceased not to make any complaint against teachers and they should behave properly within the class room. He has also submitted that the averments of the complaint and the averments of the alleged suicidal note did not reflect the criminal, mens rea of the petitioner to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. He has also submitted that even if it is presumed that the suicidal note is true it did not reflect that the petitioner had intentionally aided the boy to commit suicide and since the basic ingredients under Section 306 and 107 of IPC are absent, the petitioner could not be put in the dock to face the ordeal of trial under Section 306 IPC when he had not committed such act to constitute the offence of abetment commit suicide under Section 306 of IPC. 28. On the other hand Mr. C. Iyyappa Raj the learned Government Advocate (Crl. 28. On the other hand Mr. C. Iyyappa Raj the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has submitted that the materials available on record and the statements of the listed prosecution witnesses would go to show that the petitioner and the other accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and that the criminal proceedings pertaining to the case in S.C. No. 206 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC-I Salem need not be quashed. 29. Countering the argument advanced by Mr. K. Selvaraj the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. Bala the learned counsel for the second respondent/complainant has submitted that the deceased Srinivasan is one of the brightest student in the Higher Secondary Section in Government Higher Secondary School, Panamarathupatti Salem District and he had secured 82% of marks in the SSLC Examination. He was having very high ambition to become a Doctor. He was widely appreciated by teachers and other students. He has also added that the deceased before committing suicide had left a detailed suicide note that he was made to suffer at the hands of the accused persons and that he had specifically stated the names of four teachers who were responsible for his death. He would submit further that after the detailed investigation a final report was filed and now the case in S.C. No. 206 of 2011 stands posted for framing of charges before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC-I Salem and at this stage it might not be proper to quash the charge sheet. He has also added that unless and until the deceased was ill treated by the accused persons in front of other students he would not have committed suicide. 30. The learned counsel has further maintained that the second respondent had made out prima facie case and that the intervention of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. did not warrant to quash the criminal proceedings as requested by the petitioner. He has also submitted that unless the trial is conducted and the fact is established, this sort of crime could not be curtailed in future. 31. He has also submitted that unless the trial is conducted and the fact is established, this sort of crime could not be curtailed in future. 31. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh and Others (2011) 1 SCC (Cr) 142 : wherein it is held that Section 482 Cr.P.C is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short circuit a prosecution and bring about its closure without a full fledged enquiry. 32. This Court has meticulously analysed the fact situation and has made almost a comparative study on the available records. After giving careful consideration, this Court is of view that the suicidal note which runs about 7 pages is nothing, but, expresses the anguish of the boy on the teachers and it did not depict anything intentional on the part of the petitioner for being indicted that he had intentionally instigated the deceased boy to commit suicide. Even if it is presumed that this petitioner had uttered words as it appears from the suicidal note, it cannot be considered or regarded as a reason which expresses the criminal intention of the petitioner to instigate the boy to commit suicide. Under this circumstance, this Court finds that the intervention of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C, can be pressed into service to secure the ends of justice. At the time of lodging the complaint the officer who was in-charge of the police station, who had happened to receive the complaint should have found as to whether the complaint discloses any cognisable offence under Section 306 of IPC. 33. Based on the material available on record and on perusal of the averments of the complaint as well as the alleged so called suicidal note, this Court is of view that the registration of the case under Section 306 of IPC is manifestly erroneous and unsustainable. This Court is also of the opinion that - it would be a mockery and travesty of justice to compel the petitioner being a Post Graduate Tamil Teacher, having put in 14 years of service in the Government Higher Secondary School, Panamarathapatty, to face the ordeal of criminal trial without adequate grounds to proceed against him. 34. Section 482 Cr.P.C. deals with saving of inherent power of High Court. 34. Section 482 Cr.P.C. deals with saving of inherent power of High Court. It contemplates that; “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order of this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 35. As envisaged in Section 482 Cr.P.C. there are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised. i. To give effect to an order under the code. ii. To prevent abuse of process of Court; and iii. To otherwise secure the ends of justice. 36. The circumstances 2 and 3 are made applicable to the instant case “on hand i.e., to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 37. In Bhajanlal’s case AIR 1992 SC 604 (1) the Apex Court has carved out seven categories under which the power of the High Court under Article 226 or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, could be exercised in proceedings relating to cognizible offences to prevent abuse of process of any Court. However, the Apex Court is captioned the High Courts to exercise its powers sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases and not invariably in all cases. However, the Apex Court is captioned the High Courts to exercise its powers sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases and not invariably in all cases. Seven Categories “1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; 2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; 3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the SIR or ‘complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; 4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; 5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; 6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; 7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused end with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 38. In the above said seven categories, Serial No. 1, 2, 3 and 7 are made applicable to the instant case on hand. In the above said seven categories, Serial No. 1, 2, 3 and 7 are made applicable to the instant case on hand. Apart from this the Apex Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : has summarised three categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. They are; “i. where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g., want of sanction; ii. where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; iii. where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” The categories 2 and 3 could be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. 39. In so far as the present case on hand is concerned the contents of the alleged suicidal note discloses only the mental imbalance of the deceased boy. It also discloses his mental depression, coupled with inferiority complex. The contents also appear to be rhetoric in nature and therefore it cannot form basis to launch criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Even if it is allowed to continue the chance of recording of conviction would be bleak. 40. In the result, the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings pertaining to the sessions case in S.C. No. 206 of 2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I Salem are quashed. Petition allowed.