JUDGMENT/ ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No.258 of 2020 on the file of Chebrole Police Station, West Godavari District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'I.P.C.'). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : (a) Respondent No.2 herein has two sons. Her elder son namely Nanaji (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and the petitioner/accused No.1 herein loved each other. As the family of the petitioner/accused No.1 has not consented for the marriage, they both married and have been residing with respondent No.2. (b) That being so, one week prior to lodging of the complaint, the family members of accused No.1 phoned the deceased stating that the grandfather of accused No.1 was suffering from ill-health and to send accused No.1 to see him. However, accused No.1 refused to go there. (c) On 27.08.2020 as the grandfather of accused No.1 died, the deceased and his father took accused No.1 to her parental home and the relatives of accused No.1 stated that they would send her after two days. Accused No.1 used to speak with the deceased for two days. However on 30.08.2020, the deceased received a message from accused No.1 stating that she has no relation with the deceased. Since then, the deceased having suffered mental agony, on 31.08.2020 at about 4.30 p.m., consumed pesticide and committed suicide, by informing the same to friend Nagaraju. While undergoing treatment in Vaishnavi Hospital, he died on 02.09.2020 at about 3.00 a.m. (d) Based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, a case in Crime No.258 of 2020 on the file of Chebrole Police Station was registered initially under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the Section of Law was altered from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 306 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. (e) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present petition, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Y. Sudhakar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1. 4. (e) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present petition, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Y. Sudhakar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is the wife of the deceased and petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is the maternal uncle of accused No.1. Learned Counsel would further submit that the mother of the deceased has given the complaint to the Police, wherein there are no allegations attributed against the petitioners making them responsible for the death of her son. It is alleged that, on receipt of a message from his wife i.e., petitioner/accused No.1 that she had no relation with him, the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticide. Learned Counsel would submit that, the marriage between the deceased and accused No.1 is a love marriage, which had taken place two months prior to the alleged incident. Learned Counsel would further submit that, initially, respondent No.2 gave a complaint on 02.09.2020 at 8.00 a.m., based on which the present crime has been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and after few days i.e., on 15.09.2020 she submitted another report with several embellishments. Learned Counsel would submit that, the allegations levelled against the petitioners would not disclose the offence under Section 306 IPC. To buttress his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, (2010) 8 SCC 628 , wherein, it was held as follows: "12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for the offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR of in the so-called suicide note. 13. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for the offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR of in the so-called suicide note. 13. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so-called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The Courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant/accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant/accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B., (2005) 2 SCC 659 , this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused. (Emphasis supplied) 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that, this is not the stage to decide the allegation of abetment since it is a question of fact. It is submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the case has to be investigated by the Police. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, at this stage. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and another, Crl. A No.1487 of 2018, dated 28.11.2018, 2019 (1) ALD (Crl.) 551 (SC), wherein, it was held as under : "13. We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against first respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the respondent." (Emphasis supplied) (ii) Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has also placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Edara Sambasiva Prasad and others v. State of A.P. and another, Crl. P No.8993 of 2011, dated 22.08.2014, 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 434, wherein, it was held as under : "18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter." (Emphasis supplied) 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has conceded to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for respondent No.2. Point for Determination : 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows: Whether the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.258 of 2020 on the file of Chebrole Police Station, West Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Determination by the Court 8. Determination by the Court 8. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary : (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A Court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a Trial Court, Court of appeal or a Court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. 9. To attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, there should be instigation or aiding the deceased to commit suicide. But, none of the ingredients are there in the complaint filed by the mother of the deceased to show that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 aided the deceased to commit suicide. Section 306 of I.P.C. penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. This Court in Chakali Lakshmi Devi v. State of A.P., by analyzing the precedents on the same section of law held as follows : "13. A bare reading of the decisions supra and the provisions would make it clear that to charge a person under Section 306, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused played a. role in the suicide. Such role must fall into either of the criteria mentioned in Section 107. In simple words, the accused must either encourage/instigate the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure that the individual commits suicide or act/fail to act, which directly results in the individual's suicide." (Emphasis supplied) 10. Therefore, in order to bring the petitioners within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring the petitioners within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. A person can be said to have instigated another person, when he actively suggests or stimulates him by means of language, direct or indirect, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that act must be done with an intention to push the deceased into such a position that he would commit suicide. In the instant case, it is alleged in the second complaint lodged by respondent No.2 that the petitioner/accused No.1, from the date of marriage, used to harass the deceased mentally stating that she would not have married him, as suggested by the petitioner/accused No.2 and she used to neglect the deceased, which by itself does not amount to the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. Further, there is no suicide note in the instant case. It is pertinent to note that, perusal of both the complaints would not reveal any instigation or conspiracy between the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in the commission of the offence. 11. A plain reading of the bare section and the precedents referred to supra, would indicate that the ingredients of the offence alleged are prima facie not attracted. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no material to continue the proceedings for the offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. Unless, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature, it would be hazardous to keep the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under trial. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 by exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. Resultantly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.258 of 2020 on the file of Chebrole Police Station, West Godavari District, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC. 13. Resultantly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.258 of 2020 on the file of Chebrole Police Station, West Godavari District, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC. 13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.