JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in S.C.No.118 of 2016 on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and to quash the same.) (The case has been heard through video conference) 1. The petitioner, sole accused in S.C.No.118 of 2016, on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, stood charged for offence under Section 306 I.P.C., seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, is before this Court with this quash petition. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the deceased in this case one Abdul Raheem, son of the second respondent/defacto complainant. He was working in a private courier company along with the petitioner/accused. On 03.09.2015, the deceased borrowed the petitioner’s car and gone to Puducherry, while he was returning back, the car met with an accident. The deceased got the car repaired and handed over the same to the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused not being satisfied with the way in which the car was repaired, insisted the deceased to get the car properly repaired. 3. In the above circumstances, on 18.09.2015, the deceased committed suicide by hanging in his friend’s house. He left two suicide notes alleging that due to the harassment of the petitioner, he is committing suicide. Subsequently, the mother of the deceased filed a complaint. Originally, the crime was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and after investigation, final report has been filed for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and the same was taken cognizance and the matter is pending trial in S.C.No.118 of 2016 on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, to quash the same, the present petition has been filed. 4. Mr.R.Rajarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner is that, the petitioner only insisted the deceased to get the car properly repaired and he never instigated the deceased for committing suicide and it does not amount to abetment attracting the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that from the alleged suicide note left by the deceased it cannot be inferred that the petitioner had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The learned counsel further submitted that from the alleged suicide note left by the deceased it cannot be inferred that the petitioner had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Admittedly, the deceased caused damage to the car and the petitioner only asked the deceased to get the car repaired, and the petitioner has no mens rea to abet the deceased to commit suicide. In the above circumstances, no prima facie case is made out for an offence under Section 306 IPC and therefore the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. 6. Mr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, on the other hand would contend that the petitioner and the deceased were working in the same company. The petitioner’s car was damaged in an accident and the deceased also got the car repaired, despite the same, the petitioner harassed the deceased which ultimately lead him to commit suicide. Two suicide notes left by the deceased clearly shows that only due to the harassment of the petitioner, the deceased committed suicide and therefore the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is clearly attracted. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records carefully. 8. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the deceased borrowed the petitioner’s car to go to Puducherry and on his way back, the car met with an accident, which was not properly repaired by the deceased and hence the petitioner stated to have insisted the deceased to get the car properly repaired, which ultimately led the deceased committing suicide. The prosecution mainly relied upon the two suicide notes of the deceased, the statement of the mother of the deceased and some of the friends of the deceased. The suicide notes said to have been left by the deceased reads as follows: “TAMIL” 9. From a perusal of the suicide notes, absolutely no offence, much less an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. in made out. In the above said suicide notes nothing there to suggest that the petitioner has instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To bring the case within the ambit of Section 306 I.P.C., there must be materials to show that, the persons who is stated to have abetted the commission of suicide has played an active role in instigating and facilitate the commission of suicide. To bring the case within the ambit of Section 306 I.P.C., there must be materials to show that, the persons who is stated to have abetted the commission of suicide has played an active role in instigating and facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere harassment without any mens rea which lead to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 10. That apart, perusal of other materials namely the statement of the mother of the deceased and his friends, it could be seen that the petitioner only said to have insisted the deceased to get the car repaired properly, which at any rate cannot be considered that the petitioner has intentionally aided and abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.S.Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another reported in (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 547 (SC) has held as follows: “28. 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 this 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.” 11. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shabbir Hussain Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. dated 26.07.2021 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No.7284/2017 has held as follows: “In order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC [Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 ]. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 ].” 12. In the instant case, the materials available on record did not indicate that the petitioner has intentionally abetted the deceased to commit suicide, and no prima facie offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out. In these circumstance, continuing the criminal case before the trial Court is only an abuse of process of law and therefore, the criminal proceedings in S.C.No.118 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai is liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed. 13. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.