ORDER : K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.16 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. 2. The petitioners are shown as accused Nos.1 & 2 in P.R.C.No.16 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone. A charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, 2nd respondent/informant is the wife of deceased K. Sreenivasulu Achari. She lodged a report stating that her husband was a Builder and the accused Nos.1 & 2 approached the deceased to construct a house at Sai Eswar Nagar, Nandyal town. Accordingly, the deceased and wife of accused No.1,Smt.Chitte Krishnaveni, entered into an agreement on 15.03.2021 and the deceased had taken an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) towards advance from the accused for construction of house. The deceased purchased building material with the advance amount. Thereafter, accused pressurized the deceased to construct the house quickly or to repay the said advance amount. On 06.08.2021, deceased committed suicide leaving a suicide note wherein, it is stated that accused were responsible for his death. Basing on the report filed by the wife of deceased/respondent No.2, police registered a case in Crime No.237 of 2021 of Bethamcherla Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as even accepting the entire accusations to be true, no prima facie case for the offence under Sections 306 read with 34 I.P.C has been made out as against the petitioners herein. According to him, in order to attract offence under Section 306 I.P.C, the ingredients under Section 107 I.P.C have to be satisfied. A perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that none of the accusations contained in the charge sheet would come within the purview of 107 I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that notice has been served on the respondent No.2 but none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. 6. A perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that none of the accusations contained in the charge sheet would come within the purview of 107 I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that notice has been served on the respondent No.2 but none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. 6. Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed quashing of the proceedings on the ground that a reading of the charge sheet goes to show that the accusations are contained as against the petitioners herein that there is a pressure from the accused to construct the building or to repay the amounts given as advance to the deceased. According to him, a prima facie offence under Section 306 I.P.C is made out. He further submits that truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be decided in the course of trial but not by this Court in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 8. The deceased was eking out his livelihood by constructing houses. The deceased is the younger son amongst the three sons to his parents. Since the deceased was a builder, the petitioners herein approached the deceased to construct a building at Sai Eswar Nagar, Nandyal town and accordingly, the wife of accused No.1, Smt.Chitte Krishnaveni and the deceased entered into agreement on 15.03.2021. The deceased had taken an advance of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) in order to construct the building. Later the deceased started constructing the building at Sai Eswar Nagar, Nandyal town. Meanwhile, the petitioners herein pressurized the deceased to construct the building quickly or to repay the amounts taken by the deceased. 9. It is alleged that the deceased purchased building material with the advance amount taken from the petitioners. In view of the same, he could not return the money to the accused. On 06.08.2021, in the morning hours, the deceased left the house without informing the inmates of the house, but the deceased informed 2nd respondent/informant that he would commit suicide at Maddileti Swamy Temple, R.S. Rangapuram Village of Bethamcherla Mandal. On knowing the same, 2nd respondent/informant along with her relatives LW.2 and others searched for him. They found the deceased dead, consuming poison. During the course of inquest, a suicide note narrating that the accused Nos.1 & 2 were responsible for the death of the deceased was found. On knowing the same, 2nd respondent/informant along with her relatives LW.2 and others searched for him. They found the deceased dead, consuming poison. During the course of inquest, a suicide note narrating that the accused Nos.1 & 2 were responsible for the death of the deceased was found. Upon receipt of complaint from 2nd respondent, police registered a case in crime No.237 of 2021 of Bethamcherla Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 I.P.C and investigated the case. The police after conducting investigation, filed charge sheet as against the petitioners herein. The police examined as many as 16 witnesses on their behalf. 10. In order to attract the offence under Section 306 I.P.C, it has to be seen whether the essential ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C are satisfied or not. Section 107 reads as follows : “107. Abetment of a thing.—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 thing. 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.” 11. On perusal of the said Section goes to show that firstly, the accused should instigate other person to do a thing; secondly, there should be conspiracy amongst the accused by engaging one or more persons to do a certain thing in pursuance of the said conspiracy; and thirdly, there should be intentional aid by any act or illegal omission in doing that thing. On a reading of the entire material on record, the accusations herein would not in any way come within the purview of Section 107 of I.P.C. 12. In the present case on hand, the only accusation that has been made as against the petitioners herein is that they alleged to have insisted the deceased to construct the building as early as possible. Thereafter, it is alleged that the deceased committed suicide on the ground that he is not in a position to repay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was taken as advance from the accused. Going by the averments, there is no instigation or intentional aiding on the part of the petitioners herein in driving the deceased herein to commit suicide. There is no material on record to show that there is a conspiracy among the accused in driving the deceased to commit suicide. In normal parlance, if there is a delay in constructing the house, the owners of the building would ask for completion of the house as expeditiously as possible. It does not amount to instigating or intentionally aiding the deceased to commit suicide. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shabbir Hussain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 743 wherein, paragraph Nos. 4,5,6 reads as under; 4. 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. 5. 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 ]. 6. 5. 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 ]. 6. 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 ]. He further relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 737, wherein, it was held in paragraph No. 9 as under : “9. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. Except the selfserving statements of the complainant and other witnesses stating that deceased was in love with the appellant, there is no other material to show that appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. From the material placed on record it is clear that on the date of incident on 04.05.2018 deceased went to the house of the appellant and consumed poison by taking out from a small bottle which he has carried in his pocket. Merely because he consumed poison in front of the house of the appellant, that itself will not indicate any relation of the appellant with the deceased. „Abetment’ involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.) No.7554 of 2019 option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.) No.7554 of 2019 option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. There is nothing on record to show that appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306 IPC. Even with regard to offence alleged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed that except vague and bald statement that the appellant and other family members abused deceased by uttering casteist words but there is nothing on record to show to attract any of the ingredients for the alleged offence also. This Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Supra) had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is impossible to lay down any straightjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.” 14. In the present case on hand, there is neither active part played by the petitioners herein nor any harassment meted out on the deceased in getting the house constructed as early as possible. A vague statement has been made to the extent that accused are alleged to have pressurized the deceased herein to construct the building expeditiously or else to return the advance. Apart from it, there is no scintilla of material to show that they harassed or played any active part on the deceased so as to take the extreme step to commit suicide. 15. On the other hand, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mahendra K.C. Vs. Apart from it, there is no scintilla of material to show that they harassed or played any active part on the deceased so as to take the extreme step to commit suicide. 15. On the other hand, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mahendra K.C. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC Online SC 1021 wherein paragraph No. 24 reads as follows : “Where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.” 16. The case which was relied upon by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was at the stage of F.I.R. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically mentioned that even before the completion of investigation in the complaint therein which was registered as crime No.564 of 2016, the proceedings were quashed on the ground that the person who decides to commit suicide is a weak and also made certain observations on the aforesaid judgments as to how the behavior of the deceased before he commits suicide. 17. In the present case in hand, the entire investigation is over and the charge sheet is also filed. None of the witnesses stated to the extent that there is a nexus between the acts alleged against the petitioners and the death of the deceased, and the acts that have been alleged as against the petitioners herein led the deceased commit suicide. There are absolutely no such accusations as against the petitioners herein. None of the witnesses stated to the extent that there is a nexus between the acts alleged against the petitioners and the death of the deceased, and the acts that have been alleged as against the petitioners herein led the deceased commit suicide. There are absolutely no such accusations as against the petitioners herein. Except stating that the petitioners herein pressurized the deceased herein to construct the building, there is no other act which has been attributed as against the petitioners that they harassed, or is there any direct act on the part of the petitioners herein which led the deceased to commit suicide. It is pertinent to mention here that except the suicide note, which says that the petitioners are responsible, there is absolutely no other act has been attributed as against the petitioners. 18. A perusal of the entire material on record goes to show that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C are not made out against the petitioners herein. Hence, subjecting the petitioners to face the rigmarole of trial is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.16 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2. 20. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.16 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 is hereby quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.