ORDER : J. Sreenivas Rao, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.41 of 2024 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1. That on 09.09.2022 at 06:00 hours, Anagalla Chinna Jangaiah, de facto complainant, lodged a complaint with the police alleging that he had three sons and a daughter and that all his sons were married. About one year ago, his younger son Srinivasulu, who is an auto driver, married Sirisha, daughter of Uppu Narsimulu. The couple stayed with them for about four months. Thereafter, his daughter-in-law Sirisha took his son to Balanagar stating that they would start some business for their livelihood. Later, Sirisha used to quarrel frequently with his son over petty issues. Sirisha, along with her parents and brother, had also beaten his son Srinivasulu. Then, he, along with his elder son Pedda Jangaiah and his son-in-law Srinu, went to Balanagar and compromised the couple. However, they continued to harass his son. 2.2. It is further averred that about four days ago, when his son informed him over phone about the harassment, he brought his son Srinivasulu back to Kistaram village. On 08.09.2022 at about 17:00 hours, while all of them were chit-chatting with their neighbours, his son Srinivasulu was alone in their house. After some time, when they returned home, they found the doors latched from inside. On observing through the window, they found his son Srinivasulu hanging. Immediately, they removed the body and shifted him to the Government Hospital, Jadcherla, presuming that he might still be alive, but the duty doctors declared him as brought dead. They also found a suicide note in the pocket of his son Srinivasulu. Due to the harassment and beatings of the above persons, his son committed suicide by hanging and he requested to take legal action as per law. They also found a suicide note in the pocket of his son Srinivasulu. Due to the harassment and beatings of the above persons, his son committed suicide by hanging and he requested to take legal action as per law. Basing upon the said complaint, Crime No.557 of 2022 was registered for the above mentioned offence and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jadcherla and the same was taken cognizance and numbered as PRC No.10 of 2023 and the petitioners filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings in the above PRC. During the pendency of this criminal petition, the case was committed to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar and numbered as S.C.No.41 of 2024. Hence, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking to amend the case number as S.C.No.41 of 2024 in place of PRC No.10 of 2023 and the same was allowed on 12.09.2025. 3. Heard Mrs. G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.K.Venkatesh Guptha, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant through video conference and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 4. Submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners: 4.1 Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence much less the alleged offence and they were falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are not attracted against the petitioners. 4.2 She further submitted that accused No.1 marriage was performed with the deceased on 30.06.2021. During their wedlock, petitioner No.1 was blessed with a baby girl on 09.09.2022. During the lifetime of the deceased, he had the habit of consuming alcohol and harassed accused No.1 physically and mentally. In the charge sheet, Investigating Officer specifically mentioned that the deceased ill-treated accused No.1 both mentally and physically. It was also mentioned that during the Ganesh festival last year, the deceased consumed a heavy dose of alcohol, abused the petitioners, created nuisance in the house of the accused, and damaged household articles. In the charge sheet, Investigating Officer specifically mentioned that the deceased ill-treated accused No.1 both mentally and physically. It was also mentioned that during the Ganesh festival last year, the deceased consumed a heavy dose of alcohol, abused the petitioners, created nuisance in the house of the accused, and damaged household articles. She also submitted that accused No.1 gave birth to a baby girl on 09.09.2022 and accused No.1 or her family members never harassed the deceased or instigated him to commit the suicide and the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC do not attract against the petitioners. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is clear abuse of process of law and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.41 of 2024. 5. Submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2: 5.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that due to the physical and mental harassment made by the petitioners, the deceased had committed suicide. The de facto complainant, who is none other than the father of the deceased, in his complaint specifically stated that at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 4 the deceased committed suicide, and also there is a suicide note. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are disputed facts and the same have to be decided during the course of trial before the trial Court and the petitioners are not entitled to seek for quashing of the proceedings and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1: 6.1 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has also reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Analysis: 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the marriage of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 was performed with the deceased on 30.06.2021 and accused No.1 was blessed with a baby girl on 09.09.2022. The deceased committed suicide by hanging on 08.09.2022. Basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, who is none other than the father of the deceased, Crime No.557 of 2022 was registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Petitioners 2 and 3 are parents and petitioner No.4 is own brother of accused No.1. The deceased committed suicide by hanging on 08.09.2022. Basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, who is none other than the father of the deceased, Crime No.557 of 2022 was registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Petitioners 2 and 3 are parents and petitioner No.4 is own brother of accused No.1. The Investigating Officer after recording the statements of LWs.1 to 11 filed charge sheet before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jadcherla and the said Court took cognizance of the same, numbered as PRC No.10 of 2023 and committed to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, where it was renumbered as S.C. No.41 of 2024. 8. On perusal of the charge sheet, it reveals that the Investigating Officer after recording the statements of LWs.1 to 11 specifically mentioned that the deceased was having habit of consuming heavy dose of alcohol and harassed accused No.1 mentally and physically. It is further stated that when accused No.1 denied to travel along with the deceased to his native place Kistaram Village on the ground that she was nine months pregnant and accused Nos.2 to 4 have also refused to send accused No.1 along with the deceased. Due to which, the deceased was disgusted on his life and committed suicide by hanging. 9. It is relevant to extract Section 107 of IPC and Section 306 of IPC, which 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; 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.” “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.” 10. In the case on hand, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners that they provoked and instigated the deceased to commit suicide and there is no abetment on their part to attract the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. In the case on hand, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners that they provoked and instigated the deceased to commit suicide and there is no abetment on their part to attract the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. In the absence of requisite ingredients as envisaged under Section 107 of IPC implicating the petitioners for the offence under Section 306 of IPC is not permissible under law. 11. It is very much relevant to mention that in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh , [ (2025) 4 SCC 801 ] , the appellant was charged under Section 306 IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of Ranjeet Singh, who left a note and was found hanging near his motorcycle. The note, along with witness statements and audio recordings, indicated that the appellant had pressed Ranjeet for repayment of a loan taken by a third person for whom Ranjeet had stood guarantor. The trial court framed charges, and the High Court upheld them. However, the Supreme Court held that mere heated exchanges and demands for loan recovery, even with harsh words, did not amount to instigation or abetment under Section 107 IPC. There was no direct or proximate act intended to drive the deceased to suicide. Stressing that Section 306 IPC requires a high threshold and should not be invoked casually, the Court found the case groundless, quashed the proceedings, discharged the appellant, and cautioned investigating agencies and trial courts against misuse of abetment of suicide provisions. 12. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P , [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731] , the husband, his mother, and sister-in-law of the deceased Khemabai were convicted under Section 306 IPC based mainly on her dying declaration alleging harassment, beatings, and threats of a second marriage. The Supreme Court held that mere allegations of harassment, without proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding as required under Section 107 IPC, did not constitute abetment of suicide. The Court found the conviction under Section 306 unsustainable. Though Section 498-A IPC (introduced in 1983) could have applied, the Court declined to substitute the charge after such a long lapse of time. Since the husband and mother-in-law had already served their sentences, their appeals were treated as infructuous, while the sister-in-law was acquitted. 13. The Court found the conviction under Section 306 unsustainable. Though Section 498-A IPC (introduced in 1983) could have applied, the Court declined to substitute the charge after such a long lapse of time. Since the husband and mother-in-law had already served their sentences, their appeals were treated as infructuous, while the sister-in-law was acquitted. 13. In Chakali Lakshmi Devi and others v State of Andhra Pradesh , 2024 (3) ALD(Crl.) 730(AP) and another, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dealt with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No.72 of 2019, registered under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC against the petitioners, who are the in-laws of the deceased. The complaint alleged that following a quarrel, Accused No.1 (mother-in-law) lodged a police complaint, after which the complainant’s son consumed pesticide and died. The Court held that merely approaching the police for redressal cannot be construed as “abetment” under Section 107 IPC, as there was no instigation, conspiracy, or aiding in the suicide. Referring to Bhajanlal’s case and other precedents, the Court observed that the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC. Accordingly, it quashed the proceedings against the petitioners, allowing the criminal petition. 14. In Mohit Singhal & another v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors , [ (2024)1 SCC 417 ] , the appellants were accused under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide of Ashok Kumar, whose widow alleged harassment and threats over unpaid loans. The deceased left a suicide note blaming financial stress, assaults, and threats by the appellants. The Supreme Court held that, even accepting the complaint and suicide note as true, the alleged acts of assault and abuse occurred more than two weeks before the suicide and lacked the proximity and intent required for “instigation” under Section 107 IPC. Since no direct act of abetment was established, the Court ruled that prosecution under Section 306 IPC amounted to abuse of process, quashed the summoning order, and allowed the appeal. 15. Since no direct act of abetment was established, the Court ruled that prosecution under Section 306 IPC amounted to abuse of process, quashed the summoning order, and allowed the appeal. 15. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned supra, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings for the offence under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law and it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 16. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.41 of 2024 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.