ORDER : This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/A2 to quash the proceedings in SC No.7 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor district. 2. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner herein/A2 and accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC alleging that A1 is the Assistant Sericulture Officer and petitioner/A2 is the Assistant Director of Sericulture, Sericulture Office, B. Kothakota and holding additional charge of Joint Director of Sericulture, Chittoor as District Officer, Deputy Director of Sericulture, SEED, Valasapalle and Assistant Director of Sericulture, Tirupati. The deceased was working as a Technical Officer in Sericulture Office, B. Kothakota. The deceased was residing at Madanapalle and used to go to the office at B Kothakota and he was physically challenged person. It is alleged that the deceased used to inform his wife i.e., the de facto-complainant that he was being harassed by the petitioner/A2 and A1 pertaining to discharge of his duties. While so, on 06.05.2015, the deceased did not attend the duty due to strike and during night time at about 8.30 PM, while taking food, the deceased informed his wife that he was harassed mentally by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and unable to bear the harassment he wanted to end his life. It is alleged that in the morning of 07.07.2015, it was found that the deceased committed suicide by hanging to the roof with a rope. On the complaint given by the wife of the deceased, a case was registered against the accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even accepting the entire accusations to be true, still the offence under Section 306 IPC has not been made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, it is essential that all the ingredients under Section 107 IPC have to be satisfied. Going by the averments contained in the charge sheet, none of the ingredients makes out any case against the petitioner which would come within the purview of essential conditions of Section 107 IPC. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for 2nd respondent contended that a perusal of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses clearly shows that accused Nos.1 and 2 harassed the deceased, so as to drive him to commit suicide. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for 2nd respondent contended that a perusal of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses clearly shows that accused Nos.1 and 2 harassed the deceased, so as to drive him to commit suicide. He submits that truth or otherwise of the said accusations have to be decided during the course of trial. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor concurred with the submissions made by the learned counsel for 2nd respondent and submitted that this is not a case where this Court can interfere by exercising the powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Heard. Perused the material on record. 7. The deceased was working as a Technical Officer at Sericulture Office, B. Kothakota and he was a physically challenged person. He used to proceed to B. Kothakota from Madanapalli in buses for attending his daily duties. On 06.05.2015, the deceased did not attend the duty due to buses strike and for the reason that he was physically challenged person. On the same day night, while taking dinner, the deceased alleged to have informed his wife that accused Nos.1 and 2 abused and harassed him mentally for not attending to the duties. He expressed that unable to bear the harassment meted out by the accused, he intends to commit suicide. 8. Section 107 IPC reads as follows. “107. Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who- Firstly.— 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.” 9. In order to attract an offence under Section 306 IPC, it is essential that all the ingredients under Section 107 IPC have to be satisfied. A perusal of the essential conditions of Section 107 IPC goes to show that firstly there should be an instigation and secondly in furtherance of the conspiracy one or more persons should have been engaged in conspiracy for the doing of that illegal thing and thirdly the persons who entered into conspiracy should have intentionally aided the person to drive into commit suicide. 10. 10. On a perusal of the factual aspects in the charge sheet and 161 Cr.P.C., statements of the listed witnesses, it is clear that absolutely no such averment is mentioned whatsoever as against the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to the statements of the family members of the deceased and the employees of the Sericulture Department who worked with the accused. All of them, in one voice, categorically stated that the petitioner is in-charge for about five (5) districts. Seldom, the petitioner comes to the office of the deceased and he alleged to have admonished the deceased to perform the duties well. Accepting the said accusation to be true, the same would not in any way come within the purview of the conditions stipulated under Section 107 IPC. To attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, there should be an averment to the extent that the harassment should be of such a nature, where the deceased should have been driven to commit suicide. Chastising or admonishing a person to perform the duties well in the office by the superior officer would not in any way come within the purview of harassment. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4764, wherein it was held, in paras 36 to 38, as follows. “36. Again in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Anr. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 692 : ( AIR 1988 SC 709 ), this Court observed in paragraph 7 as under :- “7. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” 37. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992) Sup (1) SCC 335 : ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ), this Court held that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to specify an exhaustive list of the cases, where such power should be exercised. However, by way of illustration, the Court laid down the following categories of cases wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 38. In the case of M/s.Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Anr., (2005) 1 SCC 122 : ( AIR 2005 SC 9 ), this Court observed as under :- “It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” 12. He also placed reliance on the decision reported in M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626 , wherein, in paras 44 to 49, it was held thus. “44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. He also placed reliance on the decision reported in M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626 , wherein, in paras 44 to 49, it was held thus. “44. 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. 45. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide. 46. In V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and Others (2010) 10 SCC 361 ), this court has held that when prima facie no case is made out against the accused, then the High Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quashed the complaint. 47. In a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2010 ) 8 SCC 628, this Court quashed the conviction under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the allegations were irrelevant and baseless and observed that the High Court was in error in not quashing the proceedings. 48. In the instant case, what to talk of instances of instigation, there are even no allegations against the appellants. There is also no proximate link between the incident of 14.1.2005 when the deceased was denied permission to use the Qualis car with the factum of suicide which had taken place on 18.1.2005. Undoubtedly, the deceased had died because of hanging. The deceased was undoubtedly hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. In a joint family, instances of this kind are not very uncommon. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of suicide had taken place in the family. In a joint family, instances of this kind are not very uncommon. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of suicide had taken place in the family. But the question remains to be answered is whether the appellants can be connected with that unfortunate incident in any manner? 49. On a careful perusal of the entire material on record and the law, which has been declared by this Court, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that the appellants are not even remotely connected with the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C.. It may be relevant to mention that criminal proceedings against husband of the deceased Anandraj (A-1) and Easwari (A-3) are pending adjudication.” 13. The intention of the legislature is very clear to the extent that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there should have been a clear mens reaon the part of the accused to commit the offence. There should be a direct or indirect act which led the deceased to commit suicide. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the petitioner who is in-charge for five (5) districts would rarely go to the office, where the deceased was working. Even accepting the accusation that the petitioner admonished the deceased to work properly, the same would not in any way come within the purview of the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC. In the absence of any material on record either in the FIR or in the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses or any circumstances showing any act or intention on the part of the accused, it would be absurd to think that the petitioner had an intention to place the deceased in such a situation to commit suicide. In the absence of any specific nature or material of definite nature, directing the petitioner to face rigmarole of criminal trial is nothing but abuse of process of the court. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 14. In the absence of any specific nature or material of definite nature, directing the petitioner to face rigmarole of criminal trial is nothing but abuse of process of the court. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in SC No.7 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor district are hereby quashed as against the petitioner herein. 15. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.