In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners/A2 and A3 seek to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.489 of 2013 of Jeedimetla PS.

2. The prosecution case is that deceased-Ashwini aged about 20 years working in Uninor Call Centre, Panjagutta, Hyderabad fell in love with A1Kranthi, resident of Huzurnagar, Nalgonda district. So, the mother of deceased along with one Bukya Pakeera went to A1s house and requested his parentsA2 and A3 to perform the marriage of her daughter with A1. At that time, they demanded Rs.3 lakhs as dowry. The complainant who was working as maid servant, expressed her inability to pay the amount and pleaded them to perform the marriage, but they rejected her plea. While so, on 17.06.2013 at about 10.00 PM, A1 made a phone call stating that he is not going to marry her and his engagement was performed with another girl, for which the deceased deeply depressed and committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan rod in their house on 18.06.2013. The mother of the deceased lodged a complaint with the police of Jeedimetla PS. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.489/2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and after investigation filed the charge sheet.

Hence the petition by A.2 and A.3 to quash the proceedings.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Severely denouncing the arraying of petitioners in the charge sheet, learned counsel for petitioners would argue in vehemence that even if the contents of the charge sheet are unrebutted, they would not disclose any offence muchless the offence under Section 306 IPC against petitioners/A.2 and A.3. He would submit that only allegation against petitioners is that when the mother of the deceased along with some elders approached petitioners with a proposal of marriage between the deceased and A.1, they curtly stated that unless the dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid, they would not agree for the alliance and this allegation by no means can be termed as an abetment in the legal parlance to drive the deceased to commit suicide. He sought to present several decisions to buttress his argument. He argued that the petitioners/A.2 and A.3 are innocent and continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process of the Court and quash the charge sheet against them.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argue that the deceased and accused are relations and since their childhood, they were allowed to move closely and thereby the love developed between them and A.1 promised that he would marry her but all of a sudden, on the previous night of the incident, he telephoned and informed to deceased that his marriage was fixed with another girl and therefore, he cannot marry the deceased. Thus u-turn was taken by him only due to the ill-advice of his parents to marry another girl with bulky dowry. He further argued that the sometime prior to the incident, when the mother of the deceased approached A.2 and A.3 for marriage negotiations, they demanded Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry knowing fully well that she cannot afford to pay such huge amount only to snap the love knot between the A.1 and deceased and thus petitioners/A.2 and A.3 directly incited their son to marry another person and indirectly instigated the deceased to commit suicide because, when the A.1, who was her close relation and a childhood lover, refused to marry her, there was no other go for her except to commit suicide. Therefore, petitioners are squarely liable for the offence under Section 306 IPC. He thus prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The point for determination is:

“Whether the petitioners deserve quashment of the proceedings?”

7. POINT: Section 306 IPC defines abetment of suicide, thus:

“Section 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.”

The term ab