ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[in short ‘Cr.P.C’] is preferred by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in S.C.No.412 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Repalle,[In short, ‘trial court’] registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[in short, ‘I.P.C.’]. 2. Petitioners herein are the mother and father of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.1 is the mother of the deceased in the above case. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: a. In 2016, it was agreed to perform marriage of Accused No.1 to the daughter of Respondent No.1 and the parents of the bride agreed to give Ac.2.50 cents of land, 5 sovereigns of gold, Rs.4 lakhs towards dowry and Rs.30,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam. As per the advice of the Astrologer, the name of the bride was altered as Devaki Manasa instead of Manasa and the marriage was also performed on 27.04.2017 at Sivalayam, Pedakakani and immediately after the marriage, the deceased joined her husband at Tenali. Two months thereafter, Petitioner/Accused No.2 started harassing the deceased stating that the horoscopes were not matched and rest of the accused used to support Accused No.2 in harassing the deceased. During Aashadamasam the deceased went to her parental home and after completion of Aashadam, Accused Nos.1 to 3 did not take the deceased to the matrimonial home and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. b. When the parents of the deceased along with their relatives took the deceased to her matrimonial home to cross the door step after Aashadam, the accused did not allow her to do so saying that the deceased was “Nasta Jatakuralu”. As the formality is a mandatory, the family members managed to make the deceased to cross the door step by breaking a coconut and while the deceased was crossing the door step, the reluctant Accused Nos.2 and 3 rushed away from their house. Accused No.4 prevented and expelled the deceased and her parents. c. Accused Nos.,2 and 3 reported Tenali II Town Police against the deceased and her family members stating that they barged into their house. On enquiry, the Police reprimanded the accused and sent them away. Accused No.4 prevented and expelled the deceased and her parents. c. Accused Nos.,2 and 3 reported Tenali II Town Police against the deceased and her family members stating that they barged into their house. On enquiry, the Police reprimanded the accused and sent them away. As all the efforts made by the parents of the deceased and the elders proved futile, the deceased committed suicide on 20.11.2017 at about 2.00 p.m., by using a noose at her parental home. d. As such, the mother of the deceased lodged a complaint, based on which a case in Crime No.97 of 2017 on the file of Nagaram Police Station was registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. e. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet for the alleged offences against Accused Nos.1 to 4, which was numbered as S.C. No.412 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Repalle. 4. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the said case against them on the following grounds: a. Petitioners have in no way abetted the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the offence, there must be a positive act committed by the Petitioners in assisting the deceased to commit suicide. Even if the entire allegations are admitted, there is no such positive act on the part of the Petitioners to constitute abetment for the suicide of the deceased. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for discharge as the alleged acts are not attracted. b. A refusal on the part of the in-laws to allow the deceased into their home does not amount to abetment or instigation of suicide. c. A mere matrimonial disturbance, however, serious or foolish, cannot be termed as abetment. Further, the allegations pertaining to Section 498-A IPC are not at all attracted against the Petitioners. d. This Court by its Order dated 11.02.2020 in Crl.P.No.4828 of 2019 quashed the proceedings against Accused No.4. The same principle applies to the Petitioners herein also. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 5. Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for Respondent No.1/Complainant and Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.2. 6. The same principle applies to the Petitioners herein also. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 5. Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for Respondent No.1/Complainant and Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the deceased died at her parents’ house and there were no cordial terms with the husband. It is argued by the learned counsel that there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC against the Petitioners. He would further submit that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the quash petition filed by Accused No.4. The present Petitioners are Accused Nos.,2 and 3. If there is any positive act of instigation that would turn to the death of the deceased, then the case under Section 306 IPC would lie against the Petitioners and that even as per the contents of the complaint, when the deceased along with her parents came to the matrimonial house, Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the parents-in-law went out. Such being the case, nothing is alleged against them to show that they have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is also stated that the complaint itself shows that there were efforts made for reconciliation of the matter before the elders and the same was not successful. Ultimately, learned counsel would submit that the Petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offences. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that the Police after due investigation filed charge sheet and the Court has taken cognizance of the offence and the case is pending before the Court as S.C.No.412 of 2018. It is pointed out that the case is coming for hearing on charges. The charge sheet would disclose the allegations against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 to attract the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 IPC and prays for dismissal of the petition. Point for Determinations 8. It is pointed out that the case is coming for hearing on charges. The charge sheet would disclose the allegations against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 to attract the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 IPC and prays for dismissal of the petition. Point for Determinations 8. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows; Whether the case against the Petitioners/A.2 and A.3 in S.C.No.412 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Repalle, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 IPC is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Determination by the Court 9. Before delving into the instant case, it is appropriate to chalk out certain settled principles of law in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, which reads as follows; Section 482- Saving of inherent powers of High Court “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 10. 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 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. 11. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. 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. 11. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 FIR 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. (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. (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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) 12. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the marriage of Accused No.1 with the deceased Tadiboina Manasa took place on 27.04.2017. After the marriage, she joined the husband at her in-laws’ house to lead matrimonial life. Two months thereafter, her parents brought the deceased to their house for Aashadha Masam. Thereafter, the accused kept postponing the matter on one pretext or the other stating that Accused No.1 was suffering from Dengue fever and Jaundice. After the marriage, she joined the husband at her in-laws’ house to lead matrimonial life. Two months thereafter, her parents brought the deceased to their house for Aashadha Masam. Thereafter, the accused kept postponing the matter on one pretext or the other stating that Accused No.1 was suffering from Dengue fever and Jaundice. As suggested by the priest, the parents of the deceased took her to her matrimonial home to observe some formalities after Aashadha Masam. It is alleged against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 that they have not allowed the deceased inside their house. As the deceased and her family members entered the house, Accused Nos.2 and 3 rushed away from the house, approached the Police and reported against the deceased, her parents and family members that they forcibly entered into their house. The deceased, her mother and other relatives appeared before the Police and gave explanation. Then, the Police reprimanded the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3. After that, her parents took the deceased to their house since the accused were scaring her. 13. It is further alleged that there were negotiations with Accused No.1 and his parents to sort out the issues and Panchayats were also held wherein, Accused No.1 admitted that he was an impotent and also an AIDS patient and denied to take back his wife. Ten days prior to the alleged incident, another Panchayat was held and the same was also not successful. It is alleged that, due to untold harassment of the Accused, and the consequences abetted her to commit suicide. 14. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.Mohan v. Valmurugan & another AIR 2011 SC 1238 , wherein, it was held that 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 is 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 she committed suicide. 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 she committed suicide. This Court in Chakali Lakshmi Devi v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 383 while relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shabbir Hussain v. State of M.P. (2021) 17 SCC 807 , observed 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.” 15. In the present facts of the case, Respondent No.1/Complainant made only bare allegation that, as the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 along with the other accused, had not allowed the deceased to the matrimonial home, as a result of which the deceased having suffered mental agony, committed suicide. But, there was nothing to suggest that Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 had an intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of any such allegation made in the complaint, as well as in the statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., mere not allowing the deceased into the matrimonial home, is not sufficient prima facie to proceed against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC. 16. With regard to the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC, perusal of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Respondent No.1/Complainant would show that Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 along with other accused demanded the deceased to register Ac.2.50 cents of land in the name of the deceased and as such, the said land was registered in her name and even thereafter, all the Accused did not allow the deceased to the matrimonial home. There are specific allegations against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 with regard to the commission of offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC, whose veracity must be decided during the course of trial. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion and the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the opinion that, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 IPC, however, it is desirable to continue the proceedings against them for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC to test their veracity. 18. In result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C.No.412 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Repalle for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 IPC. The proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC shall continue. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.