JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in P.R.C.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner.) 1. This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur against the petitioner/2nd accused for the offence punishable under Section 305 of I.P.C. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that the deceased Divya aged about 18 years was studying in the college known as Vel Tech. The present petitioner/A2 was working in the above college as Assistant Professor and A1 was working as Computer Operator and also working as Warden. Both of them were stayed in the same hostel. On 18.3.2014 at about 7.00 p.m. during study hours when using of cellphones were prohibited, A1 found the deceased speaking over cellphone outside the hostel. Immediately A1 received the cell phone from the deceased and removed the sim card and did not hand over the cellphone to the student, informed that she will handover the same to the Chief Warden viz., A2. Thereafter, A1 handed over the cell phone to A2. On seeing some obsene messages exchanged by the deceased A2 the Petitioner herein appears to have stated the following words: “TAMIL” The deceased thereafter committed suicide in the hostel on 19.3.2014. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that it is a unfortunate incident where the student has committed suicide on her own, particularly when she was found using the cell phone during prohibited hours. As the warden found some obscene messages in the cell phone the deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, it is his contention that due to the unrest among the students the case has been foisted against the petitioner who has arrayed as 2nd Accused and the other accused A1 is not before this Court. 4. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the entire prosecution materials collected in final report even taken in face value, the same will not constitute an offence of abetting, under section 305 I.P.C. The entire allegations unearthed against the Petitioner from the statements of the witnesses clearly show that the deceased in fact had affairs with one Gopinath. The entire allegations targeted against the petitioner is that on seeing some obscene messages in the cell phone seized from the deceased the Petitioner stated that, “what is the point in studying here. Instead of you go and die.” Except that there is no allegation unearthed from the Petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that due to the arrest the Petitioner was suspended and she lost her job and during the Covid both husband and wife infected with Covid and husband died in the hospital, she not even seen and performed his last rites and rituals. At any event it is his contention that the entire offence has not been made out. Therefore, it is the fit case for the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to quash the final report. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: 1. M.Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [ (2011) 3 SCC 626 ] 2. Sonti Rama Krishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and another [ (2009) 1 SCC 554 ] 3. Kishori Lal Vs. State of M.P. [ (2007) 10 SCC 797 ] 4. Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. [ (2002) 5 SCC 371 ] 5. Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others Vs. R.S.Nayak and another [ (1992) 1 SCC 225 ] 6. R.K.Ramasamy Vs. State rep. by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crl.O.P.No.4186 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016) in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 25.08.2021. 7. R.Marimuthu Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police (Crl.O.P.No.16295 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10071 and 10072 of 2017) in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 25.07.2019. 8. Jayanthi and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police [(2017) 2 LW(Crl) 132], [(2017) 3 MLJ(Crl) 123] 9. V.Vijayalakshmi Vs. State and Another [(2013) 2 MLJ(Crl) 463] 10. N.Anjali Devi and C.Veeran Vs. The Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police [MANU/TN/1953/2009] 11. Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. and Another [(1995) Supp(3) SCC 438] 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the Petitioner has not properly handled the deceased. She is nearing 18 years at the relevant point of time and the incident the Petitioner seized the cell phone and not returned it and informed the deceased that she will report to the principal. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the Petitioner has not properly handled the deceased. She is nearing 18 years at the relevant point of time and the incident the Petitioner seized the cell phone and not returned it and informed the deceased that she will report to the principal. Therefore, the conduct of the Petitioner in not properly handling the deceased has to be taken into consideration in this matter and opposed to quash the final report. 6. Normally the Court will not exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the materials collected by the prosecution prima faciely indicate that there are allegation which required to be established before the trial Court. But at the same time, when the entire materials collected by the prosecution and final report taken in face value do not constitute an offence, there cannot be any difficulty for the Court to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to prevent the unnecessary ordeal of trial. The case on hand as narrated above unfortunately a pathetic case. The deceased is a student from a college where the present Petitioner joined as a Professor as per the prosecutor and A1 is also joined as a Computer Operator in the college besides she was also working as Hostel Warden. The entire prosecution also indicate that the use of cell phones during the study hours in the evening in the hostel is prohibited. 7. On 18.3.2014 at 7.00 p.m. during study hours, the deceased was found talking to someone over cell phone which was noticed by A1 and she seized the cellphone and kept the sim card with her. Thereafter, when the next day the deceased asked her sim card A1 produced the deceased before the Chief Warden/the Petitioner herein and handed over the simcard to her. On seeing some messages exchanged in the cellphone by the deceased said to have stated that “there is no need to study. Instead of studying you go and die.” and also informed that she will report to the Principal. Thereafter, the deceased appears to have committed suicide. It is relevant to note that when the materials collected by the prosecution do not itself constitute any offence, there is no purpose in driving the persons to undergo ordeal of trial. The grave men of the offence punishable under section 305 I.P.C is abetting suicide. Thereafter, the deceased appears to have committed suicide. It is relevant to note that when the materials collected by the prosecution do not itself constitute any offence, there is no purpose in driving the persons to undergo ordeal of trial. The grave men of the offence punishable under section 305 I.P.C is abetting suicide. To bring a person within the ambit of Section 107 I.P.C.,which defines abetment, it must be shown by the prosecution that (a) there must be instigation by the accused to commit the offence. (b) the accused engaged in conspiracy to commit the offence (c) to aid into commission of offence only these three ingredients which are essential for proving the abetment to establish on record the prosecution can succeed in establishing the charges under Sections 305 or 306 of I.P.C. The abetment to constitute an offence there must be some active suggestion or support to the commission of offence. The Word instigate found in Section 107 IPC literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or to bring about by persuasion to do any thing as held by the Apex Court in Kishori lal vs. State of M.P. [ (2007) 10 SCC 797 ] Therefore, when the words which are using in normal circumstances without any intention of driving any person to end his/her life, such words never to be construed as an instigation to instigate a person to commit suicide. The entire prosecution case itself indicate that the deceased has found talking cellphone when the same was prohibited during the study hours. It is normal affairs in any institution that whenever any student deviates the rules of the institution, head of the department or warden would normally warn the student in that aspect. Therefore, merely because unable to withstand such warning and the student took some extreme step of ending his/her life such act cannot constitute an offence of inciting or instigating the student to commit an office that too with intention. Even any words spoken by the warden or professors such utterance was only for the welfare of the students. Therefore merely because a student herself thought she was ashamed and committed suicide due to emotional decision or over sensitiveness such act never constitute an offence of abetment on the part of the teachers. Even any words spoken by the warden or professors such utterance was only for the welfare of the students. Therefore merely because a student herself thought she was ashamed and committed suicide due to emotional decision or over sensitiveness such act never constitute an offence of abetment on the part of the teachers. This Court is also cannot ignore the fact that many cases are filed due to unrest among the students in order to prevent any further law and order issues, the prosecution shirking the responsibility just filing the final report. 8. In Sonti Rama Krishna's case (supra) the Apex Court has held that the words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention cannot be termed as instigation and thereby quashed the final report by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. In Sanju Alias Sanjay Sing Sengar's case (Supra) in para 12 the Apex Court held as follows: 12. ... ... ... ... ... Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional. 10. In Swamy Prahaladdas's case (supra) the accused remarked to the deceased to go and die. Such a circumstances the Apex court has held that the prosecution do not stand on the quash. 11. Similar views also taken by this Court and followed the above judgement and quashed the proceedings in Crl.O.P.Nos.4186 of 2016 and 16295 of 2017. 12. Considering the above well settled position of law and also indicated that except the allegation that the petitioner has remarked that instead of studying to go and die there were no other allegations as against the petitioner or 1st Accused, that they forced the deceased to commit suicide. Only when allegations indicate that their act was such which has driven a student to take such extreme step by ending her life it can be said that their act come under abetment. Only when allegations indicate that their act was such which has driven a student to take such extreme step by ending her life it can be said that their act come under abetment. The very allegation unearthed by the prosecutions indicate that the student has took emotional decision as some obscene messages found in her cellphone which was noticed by the warden and informed that the same would be placed to the principal. Such conduct, in view of this Court never amounts to instigation or incitement. Even assuming such utterances has taken place, such utterances made by the Petitioner being the well wisher and guardian of the students at the relevant point of time, she has uttered only for the benefit of the student to prevent such incident. Further, the investigation reveals that the student has also fell in affair with somebody. In such view of the matter merely because the girl committed suicide and such utterance made without any intention as only corrective measures would not constitute an offence under section 305 I.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but futile exercise and no purpose would be served to the prosecution. In such view of the matter entire proceedings in PRC No.11 of 2017 on the file fo the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur is quashed. 13. 1st Accused is not before this Court, the only allegation against A1 is only seizing of the mobile phone from the student and informing the same to the Petitioner/A2. Such view of the matter, merely because she has not approached this Court by way of 482 Cr.P.C. petition she cannot be forced to undergo the ordeal of the trial. In such view of the matter this Court taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and well settled law in this aspect as no materials unearthed to prove the allegations of abetment which resulted in suicide, the entire prosecution, not only against this Petitioner but also against the 2nd Accused is quashed. 14. In the result, the entire proceedings in PRC No.11 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is ordered.