1. This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.225 of 2011 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Mangalagiri.

2. Sri Ch.Masthan Naidu, the leaned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed for the following reasons:

i. The allegations made in the charge sheet do not satisfy the basic ingredients of Section 107 and 306 IPC,

ii. The petitioners were falsely implicated in this case by the de-facto complainant with a malafide intention, and

iii. There is no nexus between the alleged incident of uttering the words by the petitioners and suicide committed by the deceased.

3. Per contra, Sri M. Chalapathi Rao, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that as the allegations made in the charge sheet constitute the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Before adverting to the factual aspects of the case, I feel it apt to refer to the case law cited by both the counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions to impress upon the Court that the alleged act committed by the petitioners would not attract the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC.

i. Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. and another (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438) wherein the Honble apex Court observed that the words which are casual in nature and which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling people will not attract the provisions of Section 306 IPC.

ii. V.Shankaraiah Vs. State of A.P (2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 470 (A.P) wherein this Court at para No.7 held as under:

Since there is no averment in the charge sheet, or material on record, to show that petitioner either induced the deceased to commit suicide or aided the suicide of the deceased, he is not liable to be charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, P.R.C.No.72 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, (East and North) Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioner, who is shown as A-3 therein, is quashed.

iii. Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371) wherein the Honble apex Court observed that accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC if the suicide was not proximate to the quarrel.

iv. Sonti Rama Krishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and Another (20029) 1 SCC 554) wherein it was held that it is fairly well settled that words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.

v. Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr (2010 AIR SCW 5101) wherein the Honble apex Court at para No.8 held as under:

“….. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this. In order to bring 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 out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under