ORDER: N. TUKARAMJI, J. Heard Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for petitioner/accused and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) for quashment of charge sheet in Sessions Case No.70 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhongir. 3. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 4. The relevant facts in brief are that on 15.05.2019 one Enugu Linga Reddy/de facto complainant lodged police report stating that his son/Enugu Mahender Reddy/deceased in June, 2016 had purchased Ashok Leyland Borewell vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-05-EP-1377 in partnership with his son-in-law/accused. However, the vehicle was registered in the name of his son-in-law. Later, on 07.07.2018 the partners had entered into an agreement and accordingly his son/deceased paid the entire monthly instalments till 16.04.2019. As per the agreement his son-in- law/accused should hand over the borewell vehicle along with no objection certificate (NOC). However, with an ill intention without abiding the terms of the agreement on 13.05.2019 called his son/deceased to the house of one Shyamala Murali Manohar Reddy and there his son-in-law/accused snatched away the original agreement papers and threatened that his son/deceased does not have any right over that vehicle. Again on 14.05.2019 his son-in-law/accused filed complaint against himself/de facto complaionant,, his wife, his son/deceased, his daughter and her husband and threatened them that by foisting case he will send them all to jail and see that his son/deceased does not get married. Keeping this in mind, in the morning of 15.05.2019 Whereafter, his son’s friends viz. Repaka Suresh, Vallamdas Harikishan and Boddupally Purushotham called his son and made effort to infuse courage, his son sent them away by informing that he will come. Thereafter all of them left to attend employment generation works and in their absence feeling afraid of the threats of his brother-in- law/accused, his son/deceased hanged himself to the beam. On their return at about 11.45 a.m. finding his son’s death, on their hue and cry, the neighbours gathered, thereafter by climbing over the wall behind their house, entered and found his son died. Therefore, on his son-in-law/accused’s harassment his son/deceased felt threatened and humiliated committed suicide. On their return at about 11.45 a.m. finding his son’s death, on their hue and cry, the neighbours gathered, thereafter by climbing over the wall behind their house, entered and found his son died. Therefore, on his son-in-law/accused’s harassment his son/deceased felt threatened and humiliated committed suicide. Thus his son-in-law/accused caused his son’s death and requested to take necessary action against him. 5. Upon the report, the police registered a case in Crime No.81 of 2019 for the offence under Section 306 IPC and after the investigation laid the charge sheet confirming the accusation under Section 306 IPC. PLEADINGS OF THE PETITIONER 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire allegations in the complaint as well as the statements of witnesses and the materials collected in the investigation are not making out any prima facie case reflecting commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. He pleads that the purchase of borewell vehicle in financial transactions and the alleged threats in that course by the petitioner said to have caused the incident. But there is no allegation as to any act of instigation or aiding for commission of suicide by the deceased. In the absence of any allegation sufficient to constitute offence of abetment within the scope of Section 107 IPC much less any offence of intentionally aiding or instigation, continuance of proceedings would be abuse of process of law. Further pleaded that even if allegations of abuse is taken as it is, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another – (2010) 8 SCC 628 , M.Arjunan v. State represented by its Inspector of Police – 2019(3) SCC 315 and Jangam Ravinder v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.No.975 of 2013 dated 23.09.2023) held that mere uttering the words and asking some one to go and die or mere harassment does not fall within the ambit of Section 306 IPC. Thus prayed for quashing of the charge sheet. PLEADINGS OF THE PROSECUTION: 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the police report, the statements of de facto complainant and other eye witnesses are clear as to occurrence on relevant dates and the acts and utterances particularly against the deceased. Further the materials are indicating that except for the incident the deceased would not have committed suicide, therefore proceeding with the prosecution would be proper. Further the materials are indicating that except for the incident the deceased would not have committed suicide, therefore proceeding with the prosecution would be proper. Further the Court below having considered these aspects had taken cognizance of the offence, forwarded the matter to Sessions Division and later numbering of the sessions case is strengthening prima facie case against the petitioner. Hence the petition for quashment lacks merit and prayed for dismissal. 8. I have perused the materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsel are given due consideration. 9. In the above contrasting pleas, the point emerges for determination is whether the prosecution materials are make out a prima facie case for continuance of prosecution under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner/accused. FACTUAL POSITION SET OUT IN THE INVESTIGATION 10. Perusal of prosecution record i.e. police report, statements of witnesses and averments in charge sheet are in agreement that the son of the de facto complainant/deceased had committed suicide. 11. As per the prosecution/respondent No.1 and the charge sheet apart from the de facto complainant, the mother and elder sister of the deceased are arrayed as LWs.1 to 3, friends of the deceased whose presence was asserted at the time of relevant incidents is shown as LWs.4, 5 and 6, LW-7 the driver of the borewell vehicle and scribe of the agreement between the accused and the deceased as LWs.8 and 9 and rest are official witnesses. 12. Among the material witnesses, the father of the deceased as de facto complainant in the statement before the police reiterated the complaint version with some particulars. However except for his presence on 14.05.2019 along with other family members before Keesara Police Station and witnessing his son/deceased death after returning home from work on 15.05.2019, the rest are hearsay and on his knowledge. Pertinently it is not even mentioned that the deceased had informed anything to him. 13. The statements of LWs.1 to 3 who are father/de facto complainant, mother and sister of the deceased and friends LWs.4 to 6 are on similar lines. 14. It is settled proposition that to bring home an offence under Section 306 IPC the essential ingredients to be established are: (a) abetment, (b) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. 14. It is settled proposition that to bring home an offence under Section 306 IPC the essential ingredients to be established are: (a) abetment, (b) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Further in cases of abetment of suicide there must be concrete proof either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to suicide and mere allegations are insufficient to convict the accused; (c) Further there must be evidence to suggest that accused intended his action to lead to the deceased person’s suicide and there must be a direction association between such an action of abetment with suicide and the abetment must have been significant factor in causing suicide. 15. In similar context the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana – 2019(17) SCC 301 held that the mental state to commit the specific crime must be evident when assessing the culpability under Section 306 IPC. 16. In regard to incident dated 13.05.2019 as per the police report and the de facto complainant’s statement the presence of B. Purushotham along with his son/deceased referred to and thereafter the LWs.4 to 6 on 15.05.2019. As per the police report the friends came to the deceased and when they called his son/deceased to give support and courage, his son replied that he will come latter. Whereas in the statement recorded by the police stated that while his all the family members except the deceased were proceeding for employment generation works, the LWs.4 to 6 came there and by asking them to talk to his son for infusing courage, they left. LWs.5 and 6 claimed that they also accompanied the deceased to the house of Shyamala Murali Manohar Reddy where the accused said to have scolded and snatched the agreement papers, threatened with dire consequences and also abused his family members. 17. In regard to occurrence on 14.05.2019 as per the de facto complainant/LW-1, on false complaint himself and his family members went to the police station, there the accused threatened that if they ask for borewell machine he will lodge theft case against them. Though the presence of LWs.4 to 7 has not been spoken by him the LWs.4 to 6 claimed that they accompanied LW-1 and family members to the police station. 18. Though the presence of LWs.4 to 7 has not been spoken by him the LWs.4 to 6 claimed that they accompanied LW-1 and family members to the police station. 18. As to the occurrence on 15.05.2019, in the police report it has been stated that the friends/LWs.4 to 6 though called his son to induce courage, his son declined to go along with them. However in the statement before the police he stated that while they were proceeding to attend wage employment works, the friends/LWs.4 to 6 came to their home and asked them to talk with their son and extend courage, left to their home and on return they found their son hanging in the house. 19. If the above statements are taken as it is, the following facts would emerge: (a) the son of the de facto complainant/deceased and his son-in-law/accused purchased a borewell digging vehicle in partnership; (b) there was an understanding between them in payments of EMIs and undertaking of the accused to transfer the registration in the name of deceased with no objection certificate; (c) after payment of EMIs by the deceased the accused did not keep his word; (d) on 13.05.2019 the accused called the deceased to the house of one Shyamala Murali Manohar Reddy where he had snatched away the original agreement and threatened with dire consequences; (e) on 14.05.2019 the accused foisted a case and made the de facto complainant, the deceased and his family members to come to Keesara Police Station where again threatened with filing theft case if they ask for borewell digging vehicle and scolded the deceased and see that his marriage does not happened; (f) After the incident dated 14.05.2019 the deceased appears to be silent and depressed; (g) when all the family members left for wage employment generation, the deceased committed suicide. 20. The sum and substance of these allegations if taken as established are making out that the accused had refused to transfer the registration of borewell digging machine in the name of deceased, scolded, abused, and threatened with dire consequences and also would lodge a theft case. Even if the said scolding/abuse is taken to its farthest and resulted in insult and humiliation or threat to the extreme, whether such an act falls within the scope of an offence under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide would be the issue for consideration. Even if the said scolding/abuse is taken to its farthest and resulted in insult and humiliation or threat to the extreme, whether such an act falls within the scope of an offence under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide would be the issue for consideration. LEGAL POSITION 21. The abetment shall encompass active participation and the intention to commit crime which shall include instigation, active participation, intentional facilitation, conspiracy and illegal omission within the Scope of Section 107 IPC. Thus, credible component would be the intent of the accused to perfect or incite suicide is essential to bring home the offence of abetment of suicide. In the above noted factual context, it shall be held that the abetment involves a mental process requiring intention. In Chinnu v. Vijaykumar Mohan – 2010 (12) SCC 190 it has been held that mere harassment without evidence of intent to instigate suicide does not fulfill the requirement of Section 306 IPC. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhathisgad 2001(9) SCC 618 it was held that words uttered in fit of anger without intent could not constitute instigation. In Prakash and others v. State of Maharashtra (2024) INSC 306 it has been held that if the victim was hyper sensitive to the ordinary bodiliness, it has been held that difference in common domestic life it cannot lead to a finding of abetment. 22. Further in recent Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ayyub and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another - 2025 LawSuit(SC)167 – 2025 INSC 168 considering the aspect of the deceased committing suicide scared of insult and humiliation concerning the incidents of verbal utterances and deliberating the one sided version of the de facto complainant and the aspects of existence of any semester other than allegations and even if the alleged events anything mere semester and what was the real cause of suicide has held as follows: “18. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and the deceased thereafter committed suicide. This Court held that :- “…. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and the deceased thereafter committed suicide. This Court held that :- “…. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite means rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events….” 19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628 ]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide [See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 ]. 20. These principles have been reiterated recently by this Court in Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76 .” 23. Thus the settled propositions are emphasizing that the material shall necessarily indicate intent and abetment, instigation, intentional aid in committing suicide. Further the statutory requirement under Section 306 read with 107 IPC and the settled propositions to substantiate abetment of suicide, the aspects to be established is a direct or indirect act of instigation with clear mens rea and proximate link between accused action and victim’s suicide. CONCLUSION 24. Further the statutory requirement under Section 306 read with 107 IPC and the settled propositions to substantiate abetment of suicide, the aspects to be established is a direct or indirect act of instigation with clear mens rea and proximate link between accused action and victim’s suicide. CONCLUSION 24. In the instant case, it is clear that except for the abuse/scolding, threat to initiate criminal case for theft, refusal to act upon understanding, abusing the deceased and his family members and even threatening dire consequences are not making out any mental state of the accused to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide denoting the culpability. Thus this Court is of considered view that the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC are not made out even on preliminary analysis of the material on record. For that reason, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners would be abuse of process of the Court as such in consequence all further proceedings against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC are liable to be quashed. 25. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings of charge sheet in Sessions Case No.70 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhongir against the petitioner/accused are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.