ORDER : First Petitioner is working as Teacher in Mandal Praja Parishad Primary School. The deceased, Padala Rathan Bharat, who is elected as Chairperson/ President of Parent-Teacher Association Standing Committee of the said School. 1st Petitioner’s husband is chronic patient, taking advantage of the situation, the deceased developed intimacy with the first petitioner/accused and thereafter he tried to molest her. Due to the unbearable harassment of the deceased, First Petitioner/Accused lodged a report against the deceased to the Gollaprolu Police Station on 10.11.2016, police registered a crime vide F.I.R. No.165 of 2016 under Section 354, 354 A, 354 D and 506 IPC, police arrested the deceased/accused and later he released on bail. 2. Be that as it may, the deceased by name Padala Ratan Bharat has committed suicide on 30.11.2016. The deceased who is accused in Crime No.165 of 2016, for the offence under Sections 354, 354A 354D and 506 IPC, who disgusted and set ablaze himself in the Mandal Praja Parishad Upper Primary English Medium School premises by pouring petrol, there by the school staff and neighbours has extinguished/ doused the fire and the deceased/ accused was shifted to Hospital, later to a Government General Hospital at Guntur. The police registered the crime as FIR No.172/2016 under Section 309 IPC and recorded the statement of the deceased/accused which reads thus: “I Padala Ratan Bharat S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged 41 years, Caste Kapu, Gandhinagar, Gollaprolu, studied up to 10th Class and have been working as president in Right of Information, Gollaprolu and working as Journalist in Andhra Pradesh. On 10.11.2016, Vaddi Vijaya Kumari who was working as a Teacher in MPP School lodged a complaint against me on the charge of harassing her sexually and a criminal case was registered and I was sent to judicial custody and I enlarged on bail on 17.11.2016. I being felt sad of the incident and with a view to commit suicide purchased 2 ltrs of petrol at 2.30 pm., and set myself ablazed in front of all at MPP School (Girls). On noticing this, the staff doused the flames by pouring water. My fully burnt skin peeled out and I was admitted to GGH. 3. It appears that after recording the statements of deceased family, the police altered the Section from 309 to 306 IPC. 4. On noticing this, the staff doused the flames by pouring water. My fully burnt skin peeled out and I was admitted to GGH. 3. It appears that after recording the statements of deceased family, the police altered the Section from 309 to 306 IPC. 4. After investigation, the police have laid the charge sheet/final report before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gollaprolu. 5. The deceased wife and his father filed a protest petition before JMFC, Pithapuram in crime No.172 of 2016 stating that the police have not investigated the case properly and the investigation is a table investigation and prayed to take the cognizance of the complaint and to punish the petitioners/accused herein. 6. After recording the sworn statement, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against petitioners/accused A1 to A6 for the offence under Section 306 IPC and allotted PRC No.18/2018 and committed the accused to Sessions Court as the offence is triable by Sessions Court. 7. On committal to the Sessions Court the PRC was registered as Sessions case and made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pithapuram. Now the SC No.220 of 2019 was assailed in the present Criminal Petition on the following grounds (1) On entire reading of complaint, there are no ingredients of Section 107. 8. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents/ complainant would submit that ingredients are applicable and contends that petitioners herein filed discharge petition under Section 245 (2) Crl.P.C. and the same was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram by an order dated 13.05.2019. Now, the petitioner is precluded from filing the petition under Section 482 Crl.P.C., hence prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 9. In the above said context, the Sections that are germane for consideration is 306 and 307 IPC, which reads thus: 306. Abetment of suicide.-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. 107. In the above said context, the Sections that are germane for consideration is 306 and 307 IPC, which reads thus: 306. Abetment of suicide.-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. 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. 10. According to Section 306 IPC, whoever abets the commission of suicide shall be punished with imprisonment. Section 107 of IPC defines the abetment. 11. The ingredients of Section 107: 1) One person instigates any person to do that thing. 2) Conspiracy for the doing of that thing. 3) Intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission for doing that thing. Therefore, in abetment there may be instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. 12. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3037 held thus: 16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. 17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); and "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition). 13. In view of the aforesaid ingredients of the Section 107, whether, the petitioners herein have instigated the deceased to commit suicide or there is any conspiracy for doing that thing or whether they have intentionally aided for the doing that thing has to be seen from the facts of the case in order to bring the petitioners accused under the definition of the abetment under Section 107 of the IPC. 14. The deceased in his statement given to the police, has stated that a complaint was lodged against the deceased for harassing the first petitioner herein sexually and a Criminal case was registered and he was sent to judicial custody and enlarged on bail on 17.11.2016, he (deceased) being felt sad of the incident and with a view to commit suicide, purchased two litres of petrol and he himself set ablaze in front of all at MPP School (girls), on noticing the same the staff doused the flames by pouring water. 15. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners herein that the petitioners have instigated the deceased to commit suicide and there is no such conspiracy for doing that thing and there is no aid much less intentional aid was caused by the petitioners herein to commit suicide by the deceased, as per the statement given by the deceased to the police. 16. 16. The statement made (which is extracted in para no.2) by the deceased to the police is admissible in evidence as the statement was given by the deceased with regard to cause of his death, under Section 32 of evidence Act when a statement made by a dying person to the cause of his death or any circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death are admissible in all cases where death comes into question, which is called dying declaration. In the statement given to the police there is no such statement was given by the deceased that the petitioners/accused abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. 17. The deceased he himself set ablaze by pouring petrol on himself due to the act that he has committed suicide as he was sent to judicial custody for harassing the first petitioner herein. There is no such allegation that any act was done by the petitioners herein, when a statement made by the deceased about the cause of his death the other statements by any other 3rd person is inadmissible and need not be taken into consideration. Even the wife and father of the deceased have not stated about any abetment were made by the petitioners/ accused. Their specific statement in the protest petition is that police have not conducted the investigation in proper manner and they only conducted a table investigation. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, 2010 (2) (Crl.) 861 (SC) in the said case also there is no evidence of instigation, rejection, and held that not quashing of petition is impropriety. 19. In the said case, the deceased has given a statement stating that he is going to commit suicide due to his functioning style and his boss is responsible for his death. Basing on the said statement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the following manner: “As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. 20. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 explained the concept of abetment: “25. 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 36 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.” 21. The ingredients of Section 107 are manifestly lacking in the present case or in the statement made by the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, in the protest petition, and they have not stated that the petitioners have abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide and as per the statement of the deceased he set himself ablaze indeed for his acts done towards the first petitioner/accused. It appears that the deceased being hypersensitive have committed suicide for registering a case against him which lead to judicial custody. Therefore, there are no ingredients which attracts Section 107 IPC, as such, the Criminal Petition is liable to be allowed. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioners herein have filed a petition under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioners/accused No.1 to 6 herein and the same was dismissed by order dated 13.05.2019 vide Criminal MP No.1815 of 2018 in PRC No.8 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram. Therefore, the petitioners cannot file the present Criminal Petition for the same relief. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 23. Therefore, the petitioners cannot file the present Criminal Petition for the same relief. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 23. To answer the issue, this Court relies on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (12) SCC 406 in which by following the judgment of Apex court in Sanjay Gandhi’s case is held in paragraph nos. 9 and 10. "In Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 514 , this court while dealing with the competence of the Magistrate to discharge an accused, in a case like the instant one at hand, held : “….it is not open to the committal Court to launch on a process of satisfying itself that a prima facie case has been made out on the merits. The jurisdiction once vested in him under the earlier Code but has been eliminated now under the present Code. Therefore, to hold that he can go into the merits even for a prima facie satisfaction is to frustrate the Parliament's purpose in re-moulding Section 207-A (old Code) into its present non-discretionary shape. Expedition was intended by this change and this will be defeated successfully if interpretatively we hold that a dress rehearsal of a trial before the Magistrate is in order. In our view, the narrow inspection hole through which the committing Magistrate has to look at the case limits him merely to ascertain whether the case, as disclosed by the police report, appears to the Magistrate to show an offence triable solely by the Court of Session. Assuming the facts to be correct as stated in the police report, …..the Magistrate has simply to commit for trial before the Court of Session. If, by error, a wrong section of the Penal Code is quoted, he may look into that aspect. If made-up facts unsupported by any material are reported by the police and a sessions offence is made to appear, it is perfectly open to the Sessions Court under Section 227 CrPC to discharge the accused. This provision takes care of the alleged grievance of the accused.” (Emphasis added) Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that when an offence is cognizable by the Sessions court, the Magistrate cannot probe into the matter and discharge the accused. This provision takes care of the alleged grievance of the accused.” (Emphasis added) Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that when an offence is cognizable by the Sessions court, the Magistrate cannot probe into the matter and discharge the accused. It is not permissible for him to do so, even after considering the evidence on record, as he has no jurisdiction to probe or look into the matter at all. His concern should be to see what provisions of the Penal statute have been mentioned and in case an offence triable by the Sessions Court has been mentioned, he must commit the case to the Sessions Court and do nothing else. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Prasad v. Bashir & others, 2001 (8) SCC 522 held that only in cases where the High Court finds that when there has been a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, the High Court may, in its discretion to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 25. In the present case, the Magistrate who dismissed the application for discharge, does not even have jurisdiction to entertain the application for discharge, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Parmar case (referred supra), as such the order of discharge is nonest in the eye of law, hence the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Therefore, the order of dismissal of the discharge petition by the Magistrate is not a ground to dismiss the present Criminal petition. In the above said circumstances, the contention raised by the counsel for the respondents that the Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected. 26. As there is no specific allegation with regard to abetment of suicide, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Sessions Case No.220 of 2019 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Pithapuram. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any shall stand closed.