ORDER : (VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.) The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “ Cr.P.C .”) has been filed by the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 & 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in PRC No.24 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District for the offences punishable under Sections 498A & 306 r/w 34 of IPC . 2. Heard Sri N.V.Sumanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.B.V Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are A2 and A3. A2 is the sister of A1. A3 is the husband of A2. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners herein are not staying under same roof with A1 and the deceased. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners are working as Government Teachers. It is alleged against the petitioners that A2 and A3 used to encourage A1 to harass the wife of A1. A1 used to hear the words of A2 and A3. Learned Counsel would further submit that there are no specific allegations made against the petitioners with reference to any incident. They have nothing to do with the present case and continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit in this matter. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the deceased committed suicide at the house of her husband. One year preceding to the incident, Mother of A1 died. Since then, the petitioners/A2 and A3 are residing nearby place to the house of A1. There are specific allegations made against the petitioners as can be seen from the 164 Statement of the complainant. The Complainant is the mother of the deceased. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the respondent No.2 and vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition. 6. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioners would reiterate his argument by saying that A2 and A3 are Government Servants and they have never resided under the same roof along with A1 and the deceased. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the respondent No.2 and vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition. 6. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioners would reiterate his argument by saying that A2 and A3 are Government Servants and they have never resided under the same roof along with A1 and the deceased. The complaint would show that after A1 left the house, the deceased committed suicide. The presence of the petitioners at the time of the incident is completely ruled out. Even on the face of it, all the allegations that after the death of their mother, A2 and A3 used to stay near to the house of A1 is true, it does not automatically support the version that they have harassed the deceased. Determination by the Court 7. 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. 8. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar , 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 held as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law.Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. ***** 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial . It has been highlighted by this court in varied instance that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another , [ 2024 INSC 369 ] , highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relevant observations made in the context of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as follows; “25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute .” (emphasis supplied) 10. In Payal Sharma v. State of Punjaband Another , [3 2024 INSC 896 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld as follows:: “The decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482 , Cr.P.C ., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and Another, 2024 INSC 953 the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld as follows:: “31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely differentcomplexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” (emphasis supplied) 12. To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present In the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. In the backdrop of legal position referred supra, the case of the petitioners has to be scrutinized with great care and caution of factual aspects of the matter. 13. Coming to theSection 306, Section 306 I.P.C makes abetment to commit suicide an offence, and Section 107 I.P.C., defines “abetment of thing”. The provisions read thus; “ 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. 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. Explanation 1.—A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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 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.” 14. This Court in Chakali Lakshmi Devi v. State of A.P. 2024 SCC OnLine AP 383 while quashing a Section 306 IPC case, had reiterated the settled position in the context of the offence as follows; “ 11. In Shabbir Hussain v. State of M.P . the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the ingredients essential for prosecution under Section 306 as follows; “4. In order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. ******** 6. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. ******** 6. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367].]” (emphasis supplied) 12. So far as the first clause in Section 107 is concerned, it is essential to refer to the decision rendered in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court expounded the various meanings of “instigation” as follows; “ 20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation” (emphasis supplied) 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) 15. 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) 15. In Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. , (referred supra),the Apex Court considered various judgments and held in Para's 20 and 21 that to attract the offence that there should be clear mensrea onthe part of the accused and should intentionally aid in doing of a thing.The said paragraphs are extracted here under: “(20) 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. (21) "The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court 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 he committed suicide." (emphasis supplied) 16. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and other ,(referred supra),the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the process against the accused is to be quashed or set-aside in the following instance; "(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;" the prosecution is to be quashed. (emphasis supplied) 17. To attract the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C., there must be the allegations to show that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. (emphasis supplied) 17. To attract the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C., there must be the allegations to show that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The contents of the material placed on record would show that the deceased died in the house of husband and there are no specific allegations made against the petitioners to show that the petitioners herein have abetted the deceased to commit suicide.The material would further show that a month before the death of the deceased, female child of the deceased had died and she has been suffering from depression. On the face of the allegations, this Court is of the view that no case under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out for the reason that to prove an offence of abetment to commit suicide, the necessary ingredients contemplated under Section 107 I.P.C., regarding the intentional instigation alleged to have been given by the Petitioners to the deceased to commit suicide or intentional aid, have to be established. But the said allegations are admittedly absent in the present case. 18. Considering the submissions made, on perusal of the material placed on record and in the backdrop of the legal positions referred supra, as rightly put by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the deceased died in the house of husband and there are no specific allegations made against the petitioners to show that the petitioners herein have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Likewise, there are no allegations in specific made against the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 498A of IPC . The material placed on record would show that the mother of A1 died, soon after the deceased joined her husband i.e., A1. It is alleged that the husband’s family used to comment the deceased that due to her entering in the house, the mother in law died. The material would further show that a month before the death of the deceased, female child of the deceased had died and she has been suffering from depression. As rightly put by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, A2 and A3 are Government Teachers, they have never resided under the same roof with A1 and the deceased. Hence, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 is mere abuse of process of law. In the instant scenario, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for quashment. 19. Hence, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 is mere abuse of process of law. In the instant scenario, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for quashment. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in PRC No.24 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) & 306 r/w 34 of IPC are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.