Judgment :- 1. This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A2 M.Vasudeva Chary, A3 Thirupathi Reddy and suspect accused -S. Yadava Reddy in Crime No.165 of 2011 of K.P.H.B Colony Police Station, Cyberabad, to quash the proceeding therein. 2. Smt. Akurathi Jhansi Rani-2nd respondent lodged a report with the Inspector of Police, K.P.H.B. Colony Police Station, Cyberabad, alleging, inter alia, that her husband-Akurathi Panakalu along with Vasudeva Chary @ Vasu (1st petitioner herein) and Jayaram established. Pravah Laboratories Private Limited, a bulk drug company at Vangapally Village, near Yadagirigutta. Thereafter, Tirupathi Reddy @ TPR (2nd petitioner herein) joined as a partner. Since six months, Vasudeva Chary and Tirupathi Reddy have been threatening her husband to quit as Chairman of the Company. She is also a director in the Company. On 24.02.2011 her husband has been humiliated and forced to quit the Company in the Board meeting held in Swagath Hotel, Kukatpally. Her husband, being not able to withstand their threats and humiliations, committed suicide at about 4.00 P.M. on 25.02.2011 by hanging himself to a ceiling fan with a nylon thread leaving behind a suicide note. She requested for appropriate action against the persons referred in the report for driving her husband to commit suicide. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.165 of 2011 for the offence under Section 306 IPC came to be registered against the petitioners 1 and 2 and others. After registering the case, an inquest has been held on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Alla Srinivas Reddy and Chitra Sreenivasa Rao on 26.02.2011 at 10.30 hours. During the course of inquest, the police examined 1) Smt. Akurathi Jhansi Rani @ Jhansi; 2) A. Nikhil Pravah; 3) Kum. Naithika @ Dolly; 4) Sunkara Srinviasa Rao; and 5) Pallampati Sudhakar. Basing on the statements of the witnesses examined during the inquest, the panchas opined that Akurathi Panakalu committed suicide being unable to bear the harassment of the petitioners herein. Naithika @ Dolly; 4) Sunkara Srinviasa Rao; and 5) Pallampati Sudhakar. Basing on the statements of the witnesses examined during the inquest, the panchas opined that Akurathi Panakalu committed suicide being unable to bear the harassment of the petitioners herein. Col.No.15of the inquest report, translated version, which finds place at page No.26 of the material papers, reads as hereunder: "After examining, the deadbody, witnesses and relations, the mediators unanimously opined that the deceased and Vasudeva Chary, established Pravah Laboratories at Vangapalli Village in Nalgonda District, with its Corporate Office in K.P.H.B. about 4 1/2years ago, that after one year Tirupathi Reddy joined as partner and conducting the business, that since six months the deceased's partners Vasu and Tirupathi Reddy with the help of the accountant Yadaya Reddy by manipulating the accounts showed losses to the Company though running in profits, that by mentally harassing the deceased by holding him responsible for the losses they were trying to send him out of the Company, that on 24.02.2011 in the Board Meeting held in Swagath Hotel, Vasu and Tirupathi Reddy in the presence of the deceased's wife insulted the deceased by stating that the deceased was running the Company in losses, that he committed suicide on 25.02.2011 by hanging himself to the ceiling fan by a nylon rope when he was alone in the house, that the deceased committed suicide unable to bear the harassment of Vasudeva Chary @ Vasu, Tirupathi Reddy @ TPR and Accountant Yadava Reddy." By the time of inquest, the police seized the suicide note, which runs into 21 pages. In the suicide note, the deceased has given a detailed account of the incidents, which paved him to put an end to himself. He also stated, in the suicide note the object with which he established the Company and how the petitioners manipulated the accounts of the Company. The apprehension of his not getting any justice in third party, audit of the company accounts had also been stated in the suicide note. While the investigation is in progress, the petitioners moved this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding in Crime No.165 of 2011 of K.P.H.B. Colony P.S., Cyberabad. 2nd 3. Notice to the 2nd respondent, came to be ordered on 22.03.2011. The respondent / de facto complainant entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter-affidavit. . 4. While the investigation is in progress, the petitioners moved this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding in Crime No.165 of 2011 of K.P.H.B. Colony P.S., Cyberabad. 2nd 3. Notice to the 2nd respondent, came to be ordered on 22.03.2011. The respondent / de facto complainant entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter-affidavit. . 4. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant that the role of Yadava Reddy (3rd petitioner herein) as an accountant will be known only if a full-fledged trial is conducted. For better appreciation, I may refer para.4 of the counter-affidavit, which reads as hereunder: "I submit that on 24.02.2011 myself and Panakalu and petitioners attended the Board of Directors Meeting. But no resolution was passed on that day as alleged in the above reply affidavit. I submit that the alleged signatures of mine and my late husband on the alleged resolutions on that day do not belong to us. My husband always signs as A. Panakalu: but not as "Raj Kiran" and the signature appeared on the said Resolutions on the said date does not belong to me. My husband's name is entered as Panakalu in all the Company records. He always signs in the company record as Panakalu. Our signatures are forged. Moreover, as on that date, S.Jayaramulu, was not a Director of the company. When S. Jayaramulu was not a Director of the company, it is not known as to how the said S. Jayaramulu would sign the said Resolutions. The above said facts would clearly show that the said alleged minutes and Resolution of the company on 24.02.2011 are created for the purpose of this case. In fact, on that date, no Resolutions were passed. My husband wanted a third party to audit of the accounts of the company. My husband wanted no person either known to him or to the petitioners, should audit the Company Accounts. But the petitioners did not agree and they wanted Audit of the company to be done by one Sharath known to them and they walked out without passing any Resolution and as such no Resolution could be passed on that date. The averments made by me in this regard in my earlier counter affidavit are true and correct. I also submit that one Yadava Reddy was working as Accountant in the Company. The averments made by me in this regard in my earlier counter affidavit are true and correct. I also submit that one Yadava Reddy was working as Accountant in the Company. He resigned at the instance of the petitioners 1 and 2 on 29.11.2010 and he stopped coming to the company from 10.12.2010. But he came to the Company from 16.12.2011 onwards, the role of Yadava Reddy as an Accountant in this regard will be known only if a full-fledged trial is conducted. The petitioners threatened my husband. All the ingredients of Sec.306 IPC are there in this case and the complaint cannot be treated as a charge sheet. The suicide note does not absolve the petitioners, as alleged. I submit that page 51 of the suicide note does not absolve the petitioners. Pages 51 and 54 is clearly an advise to me and others that we should not do anything adversely to the petitioners personally and we should take action against the petitioners legally. I submit that whatever amounts were received by my husband were paid into the accounts of the Company, which is clear from the letters stated to be written by my late husband at page No.6 of the papers filed along with reply affidavit, which is to the effect "I brought. 40 lakhs from hand loan brokers with good faith into our Company". The dealings between Dr.K.N.Singh and my husband are personal. My account was joint with my late husband and was operated by my late husband. The A.P. Pharmaceutical Private Ltd. is a Centre for Research and Development of Drugs. It has not done any business. It is established only at a cost of Rs.1 Lakh. The persons working at Pravah Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., were trained at this Centre. So, the allegation, that A.P. Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd., landed my husband into financial troubles is not true and correct and the creditors were not pressurizing my husband, as alleged. There was no inability on the part of my husband to pay the alleged debts contacted by him. The debts did not drive my husband to commit suicide. As stated already, there are ingredients of Sec.306 IPC in the case against the petitioners. There are no merits either in the Criminal Petition or in the Stay Petition and both are liable to be dismissed". 5. The petitioners filed reply to the counter on 10.02.12. The debts did not drive my husband to commit suicide. As stated already, there are ingredients of Sec.306 IPC in the case against the petitioners. There are no merits either in the Criminal Petition or in the Stay Petition and both are liable to be dismissed". 5. The petitioners filed reply to the counter on 10.02.12. It is stated in the reply that pressures brought on the deceased by his creditors for repayment of debts led him to commit suicide. His inability to pay the debts contacted by him for his use was the cause to commit suicide and the petitioners were in no way responsible for his committing suicide. 6. Heard Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State, and Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that suicide note which is the pivotal document to accuse the petitioners for the offence under Section 306 IPC does not satisfy the ingredients of abetment as defined in Section 107 IPC, in which case, continuation of proceeding in Crime No.165 of 2011 of K.P.H.B.Colony P.S., Cyberabad, amounts to abuse of process of law. Learned counsel took me to the suicide note very extensively to convince that even if the contents of the suicide note are taken in toto, they do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. It is also contended by the learned counsel that board meeting of the company held on 24.02.2011 was attended by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the deceased and they did not raise any objection with regard to appointment of a third party audit on company's accounts and therefore, any discussion in the board meeting would not be construed as instigation or abetment and in the absence of any instigation or abetment, the accusation levelled against the petitioners under Section 306 IPC falls to the ground. The learned counsel took me to the Photostat copy of the resolution of the board meeting, which finds place at page No.27 of the material papers. The learned counsel took me to the Photostat copy of the resolution of the board meeting, which finds place at page No.27 of the material papers. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions: 1) State of W.B. versus Swapan Kumar ( AIR 1982 S.C. 949 ) 2) Kartar Singh versus State of Punjab (1994 SCC (Cri) 899) 3) Gangula Mohan Reddy versus State of A.P.,(AIR 2010 S.C.327) 4) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of Madhya Pradesh( 2002(3) Supreme 650 ) 5) Netai Dutta versus State of W.B.(2005 SCC (Cri) 543) 6) Girish Sarwate versus State of A.P.( 2004 (6) ALT 757 ) 7) M. Mohan versus State ( (2011) 3 SCC 626 ) 8) V. Shankaraiah versus State of A.P. (2002 (1) ALD. (Cri.) 812 (A.P.)) 9) Swamy Prahaladdas versus State of Madhya pradesh & Anr. (1995 SCC (Cri) 943) 10) Madan Mohan Singh versus State of Gujarat & Anr. (2010 AIR SCW 5101) And 11) Katari Satyanarayana versus The SHO, II Town PS, Bhimaaram, W.G. Dist., rep. by PP,High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (Crl.P.No.1455 of 2008, dated 23.07.2010). 8. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant submits that the suicide note clearly refers the various acts of the petitioners due to which the unfortunate step of committing suicide was taken by the deceased and in any event it is not a fit case, where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.165 of 2011. It is also contended by him, that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about, its sudden death. The learned counsel vehemently contends that the signatures of the 2nd respondent/de facto, complainant and the deceased appearing on the resolution, dated 24.02.2011, are not that of them. He would also contend that the falsity of the resolution is evident since it contained the signature of S.Jayaramulu, who was not on the board of directors of the company as on 24.02.2011. To buttress his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions: 1) State of Orissa & Anr. Versus Saroj Kumar Sahoo( (2005) 13 SCC 540 ) 2) CBI Versus Ravinshankar Prasad ( (2009) 6 SCC 351 ) 3) Didigam Bikshapathi & Anr. To buttress his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions: 1) State of Orissa & Anr. Versus Saroj Kumar Sahoo( (2005) 13 SCC 540 ) 2) CBI Versus Ravinshankar Prasad ( (2009) 6 SCC 351 ) 3) Didigam Bikshapathi & Anr. VersusState of A. P. ( AIR 2008 SC 527 ) 4) Dammu Sreenu & Anr. Versus State of A.P. (2003 (1) ALT. (Crl.) 568 (A.P.)) 5) Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Versus Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy (2011Crl. L.J. 4340) 6) A. Venkat Reddy & Ors. Versus Ukanti Janardhan Reddy & Anr. (2003 (1) ALT (Crl.) 326 (A.P.)) 7) Sohan Raj Sharma Versus State of Haryana ( 2008 (3) Supreme 89 ) 9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the parties placed reliance on number of decisions with regard to the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, it is suffice to refer CBI Versus A. Ravishankar Prasad's case (12 supra), wherein it has been held that exercise of inherent powers would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The object of incorporating inherent powers in Cr.P.C. is to prevent abuse of process of court or to secure ends of justice. Inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are meant to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of court. These inherent powers can be exercised in the following category, of cases: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. 10. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. 11. The Supreme Court in Kartar Singh Versus State of Punjab's case (2 supra) at para No.106 held as follows: "106. In order to bring a person abetting the doing of a thing, under any one 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." 12. In Sia Ram Versus State of U.P ( AIR 1975 S.C. 175 ) case, the Supreme Court held that in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. It is clearly held that mere proof that the crime could not have been committed, without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirement of Section 107 IPC. 13. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide. The said provision reads as hereunder:- “S.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". Abetment involves a mental process to instigate a person or individually aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also, it would involve a mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of "abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. What constitutes an instigation or abetment varies from case to case. While in some cases, acts, which are specific, positive and direct, may not be construed as abetment, in certain cases, indirect acts or omissions even remotely connected to the offence may constitute abetment. Whatever may be the connotation of abetment in respect of other offences, as regards the incidents of suicide, it is the creation of a circumstance, for the deceased to commit the suicide that constitutes abetment. It may not involve any specific course or act. But, if a situation is created by the accused, for the deceased to have no other recourse than to commit suicide, it can safely be said that the accused are guilty of the above offence of abetment. 14. Let me now take the suicide note of the deceased. It is a lengthy note running into 21 pages. I have given a close reading of the suicide note. Two factors stated by the deceased to drive himself to commit suicide need to be noted:-Firstly; the character assassination of the deceased resorted to by the petitioners. The petitioners are stated to have propagated that the deceased misappropriated the company's funds. Some of the people believed the rumors and enquired with the deceased for confirmation. It is the deceased who established the bulk drug unit in the name and style "Pravah Laboratories Private Limited" in the year 2006 and accommodated the petitioners in various positions. The petitioners are stated to have propagated that the deceased misappropriated the company's funds. Some of the people believed the rumors and enquired with the deceased for confirmation. It is the deceased who established the bulk drug unit in the name and style "Pravah Laboratories Private Limited" in the year 2006 and accommodated the petitioners in various positions. Despite the generous act of the deceased, the petitioners started spreading the rumors in the village from which the deceased hails that he misappropriated the company's funds. Secondly; the deceased and the petitioners being the persons in charge of the affairs of the company assured before the villagers to give Rs.16 lacs to the family of Shiva who died in an accident. Indeed a part of the amount to a tune of Rs.7,50,000/-has been paid to the wife of Shiva. But all of a sudden, the petitioners changed their stand and insulted the deceased in the presence of elders and made him a fool before them. The deceased gained an impression that the petitioners resorted to humiliate him in the village so as to defame him. The deceased came to know of this when he visited the village, a day before his suicide note. It is trite to note the relevant English translated version of the suicide note and it is thus:- After he died in accident, we accepted in the presence of the village elders, to give sixteen lakhs to his family in addition to this all the Directors accepted before the eiders to give his P.F., fourteen months arrears salary and gratuity. Even that we also agreed to give the entire amount in one or two months time. But till now we given them Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/-only. Even this was done after putting lot of pressure on Vasu. But suddenly all changed their versions and insulted me by making me a fool before them. More than the directors I worked hard. When I think why they are doing like this in the case of Vasu, I feel that, Only to humiliate me and to lose respect in the village they have planned this, I learnt this fact when I visited the village yesterday. When all of them were accusing me, I did not know what to do. By that time I returned from the village...... They had made bad propaganda in the market that I had taken the Company's money. When all of them were accusing me, I did not know what to do. By that time I returned from the village...... They had made bad propaganda in the market that I had taken the Company's money. When the friends in the market were enquiring me over phone I do not know what reply I should give. I felt number of ties it would have been better had I got heart attack. In the market everyone knows about Vasu, TPR and Ramulu. But I am unable to stand their sudden enquiries over phone. It is since one month that I had a hearty meal. Why this life? As I started the company with the idea providing livelihood to ten thousand persons I am unable to digest the accusation that I stole people's food. So far as I know I always thought of company's progress every minute. But I am surprised at the anxiety of my dear friends Vasu and TPR to prove these allegations. Had they asked me directly I would have told them everything clearly. But what should not have happened has happened. They did all this to harm me and my reputation. I am unable to answer the queries by phone since two days from persons who have invested in the company by trusting me. I am cheated, I am cheated. So far as I know and understand no wrong was committed. I am not afraid, But lam pained. Lost my name ----what to do. Lost fighting spirit". 15. The suicide note indicates that the deceased was deeply hurt by the rumors spread by the petitioners of his misappropriating the company's funds and they even made him a fool before the village elders by going back on the promise of paying the compensation to the family members of Shiva, who died in the road accident. The deceased came to know of this propaganda, specifically two days prior to the suicide note. The suicide, note clearly referred to the circumstances in which the deceased took the extreme step of taking away his own life. Creation of circumstances for the deceased to commit suicide amounts to abetment. The deceased came to know of this propaganda, specifically two days prior to the suicide note. The suicide, note clearly referred to the circumstances in which the deceased took the extreme step of taking away his own life. Creation of circumstances for the deceased to commit suicide amounts to abetment. The willful acts of the petitioners in spreading the rumors against the deceased with regard to misappropriation of company's funds and giving out threats to step down, from the post of Chairman of the Company and making him to feel ashamed in the presence of the village elders, in my considered view, constitute instigation as provided under Section 107 IPC. The complaint of the 2nd respondent who is the wife of the deceased indicates that the petitioners insulted the deceased and threatened him to leave the company failing which they would do what they could. The question whether reflections of the deceased in the suicide note are outcome of self-imagination or based on hard facts will be known only if the investigation in the crime is allowed to be proceeded. In view of the above discussion, I find that it is not a fit case to quash the. F.I.R in Crime No.165 of 2011 of K.P.H.B. Colony P.S., Cyberabad, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, interim stay granted on 22-03-2011 in Crl. M.P.No.2411 of 2011 shall stand vacated.