ORDER : 1. The petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No. 7 of 2024 registered by the Dharmasthala Police for offences punishable under Sections 305, 506, 354D, 509 r/w 34 of the IPC, Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, germane are as follows: The 2nd respondent is the complainant, mother of a student/victim by name Thrusha who was studying in SDM High School, Dharmastala. Petitioners are the pedagogues in the said school. The 1st petitioner is a drawing teacher and the 2nd petitioner is a physical training teacher. The daughter of the complainant was studying in the 10th standard. The genesis of the problem is that the victim was repeatedly called by the 1st petitioner on the ground that she was continuously talking to one boy, Manoj in the school. This was complained to the mother of the victim. The mother comes to the school. The mother indicates to the 1st petitioner that if there is any problem, the teacher should call her and not insult the child in front of other children. The 1st petitioner did not stop. The matter goes to the Head Mistress before whom again the child is said to have been insulted for the reason that she was talking to the boys in the school. This message of talking of the victim with the other boy was informed to a fellow student Ms. Harshitha. The fellow student appears to have informed it to others. Again the mother of the victim asked the teachers not to inform other students and paint the victim black but to call her personally and tell her. All this happened on the 6th and 7th of February, 2024. On the 7th February, 2024, the victim being frustrated with these things consumed rat poison in the school premises itself at about 9 a.m. She was then shifted to Benaka Hospital at Ujire for treatment and for better treatment to Mangalore. She succumbed to poison that she has consumed. All this happened on the 6th and 7th of February, 2024. On the 7th February, 2024, the victim being frustrated with these things consumed rat poison in the school premises itself at about 9 a.m. She was then shifted to Benaka Hospital at Ujire for treatment and for better treatment to Mangalore. She succumbed to poison that she has consumed. At the time when she consumed poison the crime comes to be registered in Crime No. 7 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 509 of the IPC, Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. When the victim succumbed to the poison, the offence punishable under Section 305 of the IPC was added. The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Sri Ashwin Joyston Kutinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1. 4. The leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioners were only wanting to discipline the child as talking to other boys was subversive of discipline of the institution. Mere disciplining the child and the child consuming poison eventually leading to unfortunate death would not mean that the petitioners would become abettors to the said suicide for offence punishable under Section 305 of the IPC. He would contend that the allegations that are made against the petitioners or the complaint or the statements would none of them touch upon the ingredients of the offences so alleged against the petitioners. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that it is the behavior of the petitioners that led the child to get frustrated and commit suicide. The matter is still at the stage of investigation. Therefore, this Court at this stage should not interfere with these proceedings. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners would again contend that the Apex Court in plethora of judgments has rendered that mere disciplining an undisciplined child by a teacher would not attract the ingredients of Section 305 of the IPC. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners would again contend that the Apex Court in plethora of judgments has rendered that mere disciplining an undisciplined child by a teacher would not attract the ingredients of Section 305 of the IPC. He has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144 and also places reliance upon several other judgments rendered by the Apex Court, on two issues as to what would be the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC, for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, which deals with abetment to suicide and the other judgment with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated fact of the victim/student studying at SDM High School, Dharmastala is not in dispute. The entire story would commence on a particular date i.e. 05-02-2024. On that day it appears the victim had confided to her mother that the her friend Ms. Harshitha informed her that 1st petitioner is spreading bad rumours about her and in this regard he has also sent a whatsapp message to said Ms. Harshitha stating that the victim will always be talking to one boy by name Manoj. This leads the child into depression. The mother by confronting the teacher asked him as to why he has behaved with her daughter in the manner that was complained by the child. This appears to have reached the chambers of the Head Mistress also and the 1st petitioner had informed about the alleged character of talking of the victim with a boy to one more fellow student by name Ms. Harshitha. The news had spread and the child further gets into depression. On 07-02-2024 the victim comes to the school as usual and at 9 a.m. consumes rat poison because of aforesaid incidents. The moment this happened, a complaint comes to be registered by the mother alleging that 1st petitioner is responsible for her daughter attempting to commit suicide, as the daughter was still alive at that time and under treatment in the hospital. The moment this happened, a complaint comes to be registered by the mother alleging that 1st petitioner is responsible for her daughter attempting to commit suicide, as the daughter was still alive at that time and under treatment in the hospital. The complaint so registered initially reads as follows: (Emphasis added) The victim was taken to Mangalore for better treatment, at which time the victim narrates the entire story before the Police and the Child Development and Protection Officer of Belthangady. The statement rendered by the victim while on further treatment reads as follows: (Emphasis added) It is in this statement the victim alleges about the role of the 2nd petitioner which drove her to consume poison. The role narrated by the child is, that the 2nd petitioner threatened her that he has a video of her kissing another boy and that he would circulate it. This is a statement of the victim before the Child Development and Protection Officer, CDPO, Belthangady and it is signed by the child. On 08-02-2024 the dying declaration of the victim is also recorded by the Taluk Executive Magistrate. The dying declaration reads as follows: The child succumbs to poison after the statement on 08-02-2024. The victim, even when breathing last, utters that the 1st petitioner has harassed her and, therefore, she has consumed poison. If the link in the chain of events and the dates are noticed, there exists complete proximity between the fateful incident and the events prior to that. It is after the death, permission is sought from the hands of the concerned Court to add the offence punishable under Section 305 of the IPC, which would be abetment to suicide of a person below the age of 18 years. 9. A perusal at the complaint or the statement of the victim just before her death shocks the conscience of the Court, as to what is the discipline that the petitioners wanted to inculcate, it is indeed a mystery. All these problems sprung, in the considered view of the Court, due to parochial and myopic mind set of the petitioners. The petitioners have projected that girl talking with another boy, is indiscipline and have harassed and threatened the victim. The victim who is of an adolescent age was unable to bear as to what would be the consequence. All these problems sprung, in the considered view of the Court, due to parochial and myopic mind set of the petitioners. The petitioners have projected that girl talking with another boy, is indiscipline and have harassed and threatened the victim. The victim who is of an adolescent age was unable to bear as to what would be the consequence. Therefore being a girl child and the men i.e., the petitioners threatening the girl child dragged the victim to depression. If only the teachers had dealt with the child in a manner appropriate, precious life of the child would not have been lost. The contents of the complaint and the statement, if read, the acts of the petitioners are unpardonable. It cannot be said that there is no proximity, no goading as is necessary in law. All the ingredients of Section 107 are present in the case at hand for it to become an offence under Section 305 of the IPC, albeit, prima facie. Section 107 of the IPC 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. 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. 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. 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 authorised 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 107 deals abetment of a thing which becomes necessary for an offence under Section 306 or 305 of the IPC. Section 306 of the IPC deals with abetment of suicide and Section 305 deals with abetment of suicide of child below the age of 18 years. Section 305 is what is alleged and it reads as follows: “305. Abetment of suicide of child or insane person - If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” As observed hereinabove, heavy reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in GEO VARGHESE. The facts obtaining in the case of GEO VARGHESE are completely different from the facts obtaining in the case at hand. The student therein was highly indisciplined. Therefore, steps were taken to discipline the said child. The Apex Court holds disciplining a child or reprimanding a child by a teacher would not amount to abetment to suicide. The Act of indiscipline was also found in the facts of that case. In the case at hand, the pseudo indiscipline projected by these petitioners is that the victim was talking to another boy. It is highly un-understandable as to what indiscipline that would be, if the girl talks with another boy. The Act of indiscipline was also found in the facts of that case. In the case at hand, the pseudo indiscipline projected by these petitioners is that the victim was talking to another boy. It is highly un-understandable as to what indiscipline that would be, if the girl talks with another boy. It can by no means be a taboo or indiscipline in any institution. 10. There is no other act of the victim projected in the case at hand. The mother pleads that the child may be left off and not harassed and the talking or the so called news of indiscipline should not be spread to one and all, particularly to a fellow student called Ms. Harshitha. The 2nd petitioner goes a step ahead and threatened that he has a video of the child kissing a boy. This has petrified the child. It is unpardonable for the teachers to behave in the manner that they have behaved in the case at hand towards an adolescent girl. Threatening an adolescent girl that they would circulate some video or harassing a girl that her marks is low because she is indulging in talking with a boy, are all acts which would impact the psyche of a girl, which has led to the most unfortunate event. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, all of which are appended to the petition, are inapplicable to the facts of the case, as there can be no qualm about the principles laid down in all those judgments. They are applicable to the facts obtaining in the cases before the Apex Court. The facts in the case at hand are unique and cannot be drawn parallel to what were the facts before the Apex Court. 11. In the case of commission of suicide, it becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “................. 18. In this backdrop, it is impossible on a judicious purview of the contents of the complaint and the suicide note for a judicial mind to arrive at a conclusion that a case for quashing the FIR had been established. 18. In this backdrop, it is impossible on a judicious purview of the contents of the complaint and the suicide note for a judicial mind to arrive at a conclusion that a case for quashing the FIR had been established. In arriving at that conclusion, the Single Judge has transgressed the well-settled limitations on the exercise of the powers under Section 482 CrPC and has encroached into a territory which is reserved for a criminal trial. 19. The High Court has the power under Section 482 to issue such orders as are necessary to prevent the abuse of legal process or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. The law on the exercise of power under Section 482 to quash an FIR is well-settled. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 272, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, observed that: (SCC pp. 547-548, Para 8) “8.........While exercising the powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. 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 the 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 report, the court may examine the question of fact. In exercise of the powers the 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 report, the court may examine the question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” Ergo, in the light of the admitted facts as narrated hereinabove, this Court at this stage would not lend its protective umbrella to the horrendous acts of the petitioners in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The petition does not deserve entertainment at this juncture, as it is a matter of investigation, and investigation must go on. 12. A parting observation, in the peculiar facts of this case, may not be inapt. The pedagogues cannot blissfully ignore taking note of human psychology, particularly of that of a child or an adolescent, during their pedagogy and try to enforce strict discipline in a wooden manner, or a lifeless manner. A need has arisen for all the pedagogues to ponder upon the manner in which they would want to enforce discipline. Enforcement of discipline has dual connotations, one positive and the other negative. The positive method of disciplining a child is only through motivation; the negative of it is in the manner that has become the subject matter of the impugned crime. Therefore, if there should be cordial relationship between the teacher and the taught, myopic or parochial mindset of the teachers must undergo a paradigm shift, as lives of children, too precious they are, should not be so casually lost like this, for the unpardonable acts of pedagogues wanting to discipline the child. What appears to be the fear that led to the unfortunate incident is, the fear of segregation from the other gender, as the victim was sought to be chided not for any indiscipline or any act which was subversive of any laid down discipline, in the institution, the situation comes about for asking the victim to stop talking to a fellow male student. It is only because of the fear of gender segregation and continuous harassment by the teachers, an extreme step is taken by the victim. Studies have put forth that among boys the reason sometimes is punishment which leads to such suicidal ideation, but amongst the female students, mere verbal aggression or ostracism that they suffer or any idea of ensuing ostracism, can be the reason. Boys and girls are in the same classroom; if they talk to each other or become friends, it is un-understandable as to how such acts could become subversive of discipline, as the entire projection by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that they only wanted to discipline the children, particularly, the victim. A child of 14 years is undoubtedly in the thick of adolescent behaviour. Therefore, it is here that they are needed to be dealt with compassion and not in this manner. It must be remembered that times have changed, and change we must, according to the changing times. Hope this becomes an eye-opener towards such paradigm shift. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER: (i) The Criminal Petition stands rejected. (ii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence investigation or any pending proceeding. 14. Consequently, I.A. No. 1 of 2024 stands disposed.