JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), to quash the proceedings in Crime No.220 of 2019 of Shahinayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad City Commissionerate. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 6 in the said case. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). 2. Respondent No.2 - de facto complainant has filed I.A. No.2 of 2020 to permit him to file compromise entered between him and the accused. Similarly, he filed I.A.No.3 of 2020 to record compromise and quash the proceedings against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 6 in the aforesaid crime in terms of compromise. 3. In support of the aforesaid I.As., the de facto complainant has filed his affidavit as well as joint memo signed by himself, accused and their counsel, wherein it is mentioned that the matter has been settled amicably between them. 4. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 22.09.2020, after recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2, directed the parties to appear before the Registrar (Judicial - I) of this Court by 09.10.2020 with reference to their identification. Similarly, this Court directed the Registrar (Judicial - I) to submit his report. Pursuant to the said order, the Registrar (Judicial - I) has submitted his report dated 03.10.2020. 5. In the report, the Registrar (Judicial-I) of this Court has stated as follows: "On oral examination, respondent No.2 has stated that he had filed a complaint against the petitioners before Shahinayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad and that the same was registered as FIR.No.220 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 306 and 498(A) I.P.C. and that now he has approached the Hon'ble High Court for recording the compromise. Considering the same, the identification of petitioners 2 to 6 and respondent No.2 is established. However, the identification of petitioner No.1 is not established. Hence the report." 6. Concerning identification of petitioner No.1, perusal of the cause title shows the name of petitioner No.1 as "Akash Patne", whereas in the Aadhar Card, his name is being shown as "Madurgi Akash". Thus, surname of petitioner No.1 is not tallied. However, in the Vakalat, petitioner No.1 signed as 'Akash Patne' and the same was identified by his counsel. Concerning identification of petitioner No.1, perusal of the cause title shows the name of petitioner No.1 as "Akash Patne", whereas in the Aadhar Card, his name is being shown as "Madurgi Akash". Thus, surname of petitioner No.1 is not tallied. However, in the Vakalat, petitioner No.1 signed as 'Akash Patne' and the same was identified by his counsel. There is no resistance either from the police or from respondent No.2 even. Thus, the identification of petitioner No.1 is to be believed as true. 7. Heard Mr. Mohd. Imran Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 6, and Mr. Shaik Shaifullah, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State, and perused the entire material available on record. 8. A perusal of the record would reveal that Mr. Omprakash Minkere, father of the deceased - Mala Sree, lodged a complaint on 18.11.2019 with Shahinayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad City Commissionerate, alleging that her daughter - Mala Sree committed suicide by hanging herself due to the harassment meted out by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 6. Pursuant to the same, the police have registered a case in Crime No.220 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences. During pendency of the said crime, both the petitioners and the de facto complainant have entered into a compromise and filed appropriate petitions to record the compromise and quash the proceedings in the manner stated above. 9. The contents of the complaint would show that respondent No.2 performed marriage of her deceased daughter with petitioner No.1 on 27.06.2019 at Hyderabad. After marriage, her daughter was residing at her matrimonial house. The complaint further shows that the deceased used to make phone calls to her father and used to tell him about the harassment meted out by the petitioners and she used to ask him to take her to his house. On 17.11.2019 at about 5.30 p.m., respondent No.2 received a phone call from his son-in-law's sister stating that his daughter committed suicide. Respondent No.2 further alleged in his complaint that the petitioners were responsible for the death of his daughter and, therefore, he requested the police to take action against the petitioners. 10. On 17.11.2019 at about 5.30 p.m., respondent No.2 received a phone call from his son-in-law's sister stating that his daughter committed suicide. Respondent No.2 further alleged in his complaint that the petitioners were responsible for the death of his daughter and, therefore, he requested the police to take action against the petitioners. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.2 came to know about the true facts after lodging the complaint and that he lodged the complaint on the evil advice given by the persons around him and, therefore, at the intervention of elders, he entered into compromise with the petitioners. Accordingly, respondent No.2 filed I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 to permit him to enter into compromise and to compound the aforesaid offences against the petitioners by quashing the proceedings in the said Crime. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2019) 1 ALD(Cri) 238 (SC) . 11. In the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 in support of I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020, it is specifically mentioned that the deceased, daughter of respondent No.2, was suffering from stomach pain since long time and was unable to bear the same and made attempt to commit suicide thrice prior to the marriage. But, due to evil advice given to him by some persons, and out of depression and frustration, he lodged the complaint. It is further mentioned that respondent No.2 has realized his mistake and that her daughter committed suicide due to severe stomach pain only and the petitioners herein were not responsible for her death, he has agreed to withdraw the case unconditionally. Both the parties have also filed a joint memo duly signed by them as well as respective counsel to record the compromise entered between the petitioners and respondent No.2. the said affidavit of respondent No.2 as well as the joint memo are placed on record. 12. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to an unreported judgment rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh on 10.04.2018 in Crl.P.No.3877 of 2018, wherein by referring to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Mohan v. State, rep. 12. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to an unreported judgment rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh on 10.04.2018 in Crl.P.No.3877 of 2018, wherein by referring to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Mohan v. State, rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626 , Parveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 Scale 745 and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 held that to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, there must be an active act or direct act with mens rea to drive a person to commit suicide. Mere picking up quarrel or making allegation without supporting evidence is not sufficient. 13. In R. K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 3 ALT(Cri) 387 (A.P.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed about powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and held that jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised with care. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, High Court can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. 14. In Anand Prakash Pilania v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) LawSuit(SC) 780 , a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the proceedings for the offence under Section - 306 of IPC in terms of compromise entered into between the parties. 15. In Arun Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 3 SCC 736 the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to its earlier judgments held that continuation of criminal prosecution for the offence which does not disclose commission of any offence and a particular section would amount to abuse of process of Court. With the said findings, the Hon'ble Apex Court has quashed the proceedings. 16. With the said findings, the Hon'ble Apex Court has quashed the proceedings. 16. In The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 403 a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings for offence which fall in category of heinous and serious offences and had a serious impact on society could not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on ground that parties had resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. The Three-Judge Bench had an occasion to deal with quashment of criminal proceedings on a reference made by a Two-Judge Bench in view of the apparent conflict between its earlier two decisions in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 , and laid down certain principles/guidelines for quashment of the proceedings by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. One of the guidelines is that power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. The High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of a particular offence in the FIR or the charge is framed under the said provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of that particular provision is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under that particular section. For the said purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of the offences and the allegations including circumstantial evidence. However, such an exercise by High Court would be permissible only after evidence is collected after investigation and charge sheet was filed/charge is framed and/or during trial. Such exercise is not permissible when matter is still under investigation. However, such an exercise by High Court would be permissible only after evidence is collected after investigation and charge sheet was filed/charge is framed and/or during trial. Such exercise is not permissible when matter is still under investigation. It was further held that while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and did not have a serious impact on society, on ground that there was a settlement/compromise between victim and offender, High Court is required to consider the antecedents of Accused; conduct of Accused, namely, whether Accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with complainant to enter into a compromise etc. 17. In view of the above said law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, coming to the case on hand, as stated above, there are no specific overt acts against the accused. Even, there is no suicide note left by the deceased mentioning the names of petitioners for cause of her death. More over, respondent No.2, de facto complainant, father of the deceased, himself mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos.2 and 3 that her daughter committed suicide due to severe stomach pain and that prior to her marriage also, she attempted to commit suicide thrice etc. Accordingly, respondent No.2, by filing I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 requested this Court to permit him to enter into compromise and to record the compromise by quashing the proceedings in the said crime against the petitioners - accused. In view of the same and following the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by this Court, and accordingly, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in terms of compromise. 18. Accordingly, I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 are allowed permitting the parties to enter into compromise and recording the compromise in terms thereof. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.220 of 2019 of Shahinayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad City Commissionerate, are hereby quashed against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 6. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.