ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) by the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.21 of 2022 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Senior Civil Judge at Medak, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed memo vide USR.No.17618 of 2025 wherein, it is stated that he sent personal notice to respondent No.2 by way of registered post and acknowledgment due on 11.02.2025 and the same was delivered to respondent No.2 on 13.02.2025 and enclosed the postal track report along with said memo. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2, has not chosen to enter appearance. 3. Heard Mr. N. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 4. Facts giving rise to filing of the present criminal petition are that basing upon the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2, dated 12.07.2019, Crime No.67 of 2019 was registered against one Maskuri Yadamma and 4 others. The Investigating Officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, and after conducting the investigation filed final report against petitioners by deleting the name of Maskuri Yadamma, before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Narsapur on 23.08.2019 and the said Court has taken cognizance against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 and the same was committed to the competent court i.e., Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Senior Civil Judge at Medak and numbered as SC.No.21 of 2022. 5. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS 5.1. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients for the offence under Section 306 of IPC were not attracted against the petitioners. 5.2. He further submitted that the alleged incident was occurred on 08.07.2019, and victim died on 11.07.2019 and respondent No.2 lodged complaint on 12.07.2019, after lapse of more than 4 days of alleged incident. He also submitted that investigating officer did not record the dying declaration of the victim nor recovered any suicide note from the victim. 5.2. He further submitted that the alleged incident was occurred on 08.07.2019, and victim died on 11.07.2019 and respondent No.2 lodged complaint on 12.07.2019, after lapse of more than 4 days of alleged incident. He also submitted that investigating officer did not record the dying declaration of the victim nor recovered any suicide note from the victim. He further submitted that there are no allegation much less specific allegation against the petitioners that they provoked and instigated the deceased to commit suicide and also 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. 5.3. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the 161 statement, the dispute in respect of Maskuri Job (Vathan), petitioners are not having any role to appoint the victim or his family members to the post of Maskuri Job (Vathan) and the competent authority is only Tahsildar. Even if Maskuri Yadamma or her family members are enjoying the benefits of Maskuri Job (Vathan) in the place of victim or her family members, either victim or the defacto complainant ought to have made complaint to the competent authority i.e., Tahsildar or file before appellate authority questioning the appointment order issued in favour of Maskuri Yadamma or her family members, but such steps have not been taken. 5.4. He also submitted that the dispute in respect of Maskuri Job (Vathan) is between respondent No.2 family and Maskuri Yadamma family only. Admittedly, the investigating officer deleted the name of Maskuri Yadamma while filing final report. On the other hand, implicated the petitioners solely basing upon the statement of LW5 to LW8 and admittedly, they are not eye witnesses and close relatives of LW1 and their statements cannot be taken into consideration. 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.21 of 2022. 5.5. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in : 1. Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh , (2002)5SCC371 , and 2. Laxmi Das Vs State of West Bengal and others, (2025)SCC online SC 120 6. 5.5. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in : 1. Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh , (2002)5SCC371 , and 2. Laxmi Das Vs State of West Bengal and others, (2025)SCC online SC 120 6. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 6.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are allegations against the petitioners to attract the ingredients for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are disputed facts and the same have to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after full- fledged trial only and the criminal petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. ANALYSIS: 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2/de- facto complainant lodged complaint on 12.07.2019 and basing upon the same, Crime No.67 of 2019 was registered against Maskuri Yadamma and others. The Investigating Officer filed final report against the petitioners for the offence under Section 306 of IPC by deleting the name of the Maskuri Yadamma. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the final report, it reveals that the alleged incident was occurred on 08.07.2019, the victim died on 11.07.2019 and respondent No.2 lodged complaint on 12.07.2019. In the complaint, respondent No.2 has not made any specific allegations against the petitioners alleging that they abused the victim or provoked or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. 8. The statements of witnesses, which were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C also does not reflect that any allegation has been made against the petitioners that they provoked or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. 9. It is also relevant to mention that LW5 to LW8 in their statements have stated that there are disputes between defacto complainant family and Maskuri Yadamma family in respect of Maskuri Job (Vathan). However, the investigating officer did not mention in the final report whether any cases are pending between them, and the investigating officer filed final report deleting the name of Maskuri Yadamma, who was arrayed as accused No.1 in F.I.R.No.67 of 2019. 10. It is relevant to extract Section 107 of IPC and Section 306 of IPC, which reads as follows: “107. 10. 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.” 11. It is already stated supra that 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. 12. In Laxmi Das supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if the entire prosecution material, including the chargesheet and witness statements, were accepted at face value, there was not even a scintilla of evidence to attract Section 306 IPC, as the acts attributed to the appellant were remote, indirect, and devoid of the requisite mens rea, with no material to suggest that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide. Similarly, in Sanju supra, the Honble Supreme Court found that the deceased was under severe personal stress, unemployed, habitually intoxicated, and mentally disturbed, and that the suicide note itself reflected an unsound state of mind. The alleged quarrel and abusive language attributed to the appellant were held to be too remote in time and nature to constitute the proximate cause of suicide. In the absence of any direct or intentional act amounting to instigation, the Court concluded in both cases that the suicide was the result of the deceased’s own conduct and circumstances, and that the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC were wholly absent. 13. In the absence of any direct or intentional act amounting to instigation, the Court concluded in both cases that the suicide was the result of the deceased’s own conduct and circumstances, and that the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC were wholly absent. 13. In the case on hand, the dispute is related to the alleged denial of Maskuri Job (Vathan) and the alleged harassment emanating from a local/village dispute and there is no specific allegation levelled against the petitioners attributing any direct act of instigation or intentional aid. In the absence of mens rea, proximate cause, or cogent material linking the petitioner to the act of suicide, and particularly in view of the lack of eyewitness support, continuation of the proceedings under Section 306 IPC would amount to an abuse of process of law. 14. It is used much to mention that in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2025)4SCC801 , 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. 15. 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. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 18. 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 528 of BNSS to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 19. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.21 of 2022 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum- Senior Civil Judge at Medak, are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.