ORDER :

K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.16 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of I.P.C.

2. The petitioners are shown as accused Nos.1 & 2 in P.R.C.No.16 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone. A charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of I.P.C.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, 2nd respondent/informant is the wife of deceased K. Sreenivasulu Achari. She lodged a report stating that her husband was a Builder and the accused Nos.1 & 2 approached the deceased to construct a house at Sai Eswar Nagar, Nandyal town. Accordingly, the deceased and wife of accused No.1,Smt.Chitte Krishnaveni, entered into an agreement on 15.03.2021 and the deceased had taken an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) towards advance from the accused for construction of house. The deceased purchased building material with the advance amount. Thereafter, accused pressurized the deceased to construct the house quickly or to repay the said advance amount. On 06.08.2021, deceased committed suicide leaving a suicide note wherein, it is stated that accused were responsible for his death. Basing on the report filed by the wife of deceased/respondent No.2, police registered a case in Crime No.237 of 2021 of Bethamcherla Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as even accepting the entire accusations to be true, no prima facie case for the offence under Sections 306 read with 34 I.P.C has been made out as against the petitioners herein. According to him, in order to attract offence under Section 306 I.P.C, the ingredients under Section 107 I.P.C have to be satisfied. A perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that none of the accusations contained in the charge sheet would come within the purview of 107 I.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that notice has been served on the respondent No.2 but none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

6. Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed quashing of the proceedings on the ground that a reading of the charge sheet goes to show that the accusations are contained as against the petitioners herein that there is a pressure from the accused to construct the building or to repay the amounts given as advance to the deceased. According to him, a prima facie offence under Section 306 I.P.C is made out. He further submits that truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be decided in the course of trial but not by this Court in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8. The deceased was eking out his livelihood by constructing houses. The deceased is the younger son amongst the three sons to his parents. Since the deceased was a builder, the petitioners herein approached the deceased to construct a building at Sai Eswar Nagar, Nandyal town and accordingly, the wife of accused No.1, Smt.Chitte Krishnaveni and the deceased entered into agreement on 15.03.2021. The deceased had taken an advance of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) in order to construct the building. Later the deceased started constructing the building at Sai Eswar Nagar, Nandyal town. Meanwhile, the petitioners herein pressurized the deceased to construct the building quickly or to repay the amounts taken by the deceased.

9. It is alleged that