ORDER : Juvvadi Sridevi, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in S.C.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, registered for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Heard Sri Anuganti Praneeth, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State- respondent No.1. Even after service of notice, none appeared on behalf of unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record. 3(a). The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: One Smt.Pasupunuti @ Chatla Thirumaleshwari, W/o.Sampath (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), was working as a Junior Lecturer at TSWRS (Girls), Chennur. The accused Nos.1 to 5 are her colleagues working in the same institution. During the course of her employment, the deceased was entrusted with additional charge as Mess In-Charge. Owing to the said additional responsibility, the deceased was allegedly under mental stress and was suffering from depression. On 15.10.2023 at about 17:00 hours, the deceased telephoned her husband and informed him that her colleagues, namely the accused Nos.1 to 5, were subjecting her to mental harassment. 3(b). Upon receiving the said information, the husband of the deceased immediately went to the college, discussed the matter with the accused No.1, and thereafter took the deceased to their residence. On 16.10.2023 at about 06:00 hours, the husband of the deceased dropped her at the school. Thereafter, the deceased proceeded to Pedda Cheruvu, Chennur. Being unable to cope with the alleged work pressure and mental stress, she committed suicide by drowning in Pedda Cheruvu. 3(c). At about 08:00 hours on the same day, the husband of the deceased attempted to contact her over the phone; however, she did not respond. He then contacted the school staff to enquire about her whereabouts and was informed that she had not reported to duty. Subsequently, when he again dialed the deceased’s mobile phone, an unknown person answered the call and informed him that the deceased’s mobile phone and bag were found near Pedda Cheruvu, Chennur and at about 09:30 hours, the husband of the deceased rushed to Pedda Cheruvu, Chennur, where he found the dead body of the deceased. Subsequently, when he again dialed the deceased’s mobile phone, an unknown person answered the call and informed him that the deceased’s mobile phone and bag were found near Pedda Cheruvu, Chennur and at about 09:30 hours, the husband of the deceased rushed to Pedda Cheruvu, Chennur, where he found the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was shifted to the Community Health Centre, Chennur, where the duty doctor examined the deceased and declared that she was brought dead. Thereafter, upon verifying the mobile phone of the deceased, the husband found certain voice recordings, wherein the deceased stated that the accused Nos.1 to 5 had mentally tortured and harassed her. On the basis of the said allegations, it is contended that the accused Nos.1 to 5 had committed offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused No.3 has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences. It is contended that the petitioner- accused No.3 was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in the year 2023. In the 9 th Zonal Level Sports Meet for the year 2023-24 from 13.10.2023 to 16.10.2023, the petitioner was included in the Transportation Committee and the deceased was included in the Food Committee. The petitioner and the deceased were in different committees and there was no occasion for them to work together and the petitioner had no role in the suicide committed by the deceased. In the absence of proximate live link between the petitioner-accused No.3 and the deceased, in connection with the death of the deceased. There is nothing to indicate that there was instigation or abetment by the petitioner- accused No.3 which had driven the deceased to take extreme step of committing suicide. The Police filed the charge sheet without proper investigation and there is no incriminating material against the petitioner-accused No.3. There are no essential ingredients required for constituting the alleged offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4(b). The Police filed the charge sheet without proper investigation and there is no incriminating material against the petitioner-accused No.3. There are no essential ingredients required for constituting the alleged offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4(b). With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3, relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in M.Arjunan v. State represented by its Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No(s).1550 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.382 of 2016) wherein it was held at Paragraph No.8 that: “(8) The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.” 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to extract Section 306 of IPC, which reads as: “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.” 7. It is clear that Section 306 of IPC pertains to the offence of abetment of suicide and comprises two essential ingredients: firstly, that a person has committed suicide; and secondly, that such suicide was abetted by another person through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The existence of a direct or live proximate link between the alleged abetment and the act of suicide is a sine qua non for attracting this provision. 8. The existence of a direct or live proximate link between the alleged abetment and the act of suicide is a sine qua non for attracting this provision. 8. It is manifest from the record that the deceased and the petitioner-accused No.3 were working in the same institution and were assigned to different committees in connection with the 9th Zonal Level Sports Meet for the academic year 2023-24, held from 13.10.2023 to 16.10.2023. The cardinal principle governing an offence under Section 306 of IPC is that there must exist a close, direct, and proximate link between the alleged act of instigation by the accused and the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such proximity must be of a compelling nature, clearly establishing an unequivocal nexus between the conduct attributed to the petitioner-accused No.3 and the act of suicide. Mere allegations relating to workload or work pressure, in the absence of any specific, proximate, and overt act of incitement or instigation, are legally insufficient to constitute the offence of abetment. Notably, there is no material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner-accused No.3 had any recent contact or interaction with the deceased in a manner that could be construed as amounting to abetment. In the absence of any cogent material disclosing a live and proximate link between the conduct of the petitioner-accused No.3 and the alleged suicide, the foundational ingredients necessary to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC are conspicuously absent. 9. A careful perusal of the entire record reveals that when the husband of the deceased attempted to contact her over the phone, the call was answered by an unknown person, who informed him that the handbag and mobile phone of the deceased were found at Pedda Cheruvu. However, despite the material relevance of this person to the prosecution case, the investigating agency failed to examine him or record his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The failure to examine such a crucial witness constitutes a serious lapse in the investigation and goes to the root of the matter. The testimony of this witness was vital to determine whether the death of the deceased was suicidal, accidental, or otherwise. Consequently, such an omission is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 10. The failure to examine such a crucial witness constitutes a serious lapse in the investigation and goes to the root of the matter. The testimony of this witness was vital to determine whether the death of the deceased was suicidal, accidental, or otherwise. Consequently, such an omission is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 10. Furthermore, to attract the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, there must be incriminating material establishing the existence of a common intention among the accused persons to abet the commission of suicide. A perusal of the material on record, however, does not disclose any such incriminating evidence connecting the petitioner-accused No.3 to the death of the deceased by way of suicide. Significantly, the investigating agency has also failed to collect or place on record any call detail records from the authenticated service providers to demonstrate any incriminating communication attributable to the petitioner- accused No.3. In the absence of such material, the essential ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged are not made out. 11. On a careful perusal of the record, it does not disclose any overt act of instigation, presence of live proximate link, or intentional aid, or active participation on the part of the petitioner-accused No.3 that can be directly linked to the act of alleged suicide by the deceased. Even if the contents of the charge sheet are taken at face value and presumed to be true, they do not satisfy the foundational ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC, and as such, fall short of attracting the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 12. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no incriminating material whatsoever to construe that the death of the deceased attributable to any culpable conduct, intentional aid, instigation, or active participation on the part of the petitioner-accused No.3. In the absence of any cogent and legally admissible material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, compelling the petitioner-accused to undergo the rigour of trial would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law. 13. In the absence of any cogent and legally admissible material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, compelling the petitioner-accused to undergo the rigour of trial would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law. 13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC are not made out against the petitioner-accused No.3. As such, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 is wholly untenable and liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 in S.C.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.