K.N. Phaneendra, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 2 - State. Perused the records.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings in P.C. No. 69/2011, which is later registered as C.C. No. 649/2013, on the file of Prl. J.M.F.C., Bhatkal.

3. A person by name Sharad Kumar Shirali, who is respondent No. 1 herein has lodged a private complaint alleging that the accused-petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C for brevity). It appears that the learned Magistrate after registering the complaint has referred the matter to police for investigation and report. After registering the case police have investigated the matter and submitted a final report to the Court that it is a false case. The complainant was given an opportunity to contest the 'B' Final report submitted by police. Accordingly, on 17.06.2013 respondent has filed protest petition, wherein, he has stated that the police have not properly investigated the matter, on the basis of said protest petition and on the allegations made in the original complaint, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and recorded the sworn statement of complainant as P.W.1, one Rajendra as P.W.2 and one Sandeep Shetty as P.W.3. Thereafter, learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. against the accused -petitioner. As such cognizance is taken against petitioner and summons is also issued to him under Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C. for brevity). At this juncture, present petition is filed for quashing of the entire proceedings before the learned Magistrate. Before adverting to the factual matrix of this case and find out whether there are any grounds to quash the entire proceedings, it is just and necessary to bear in mind the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 strenuously contended that the averments made in complaint and the sworn statement, if it is translated into evidence, at this stage, are sufficient to show that there are prima facie materials to attract Section 306 of I.P.C. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality. Secondly, he contended that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the private complaint, then he has to approach the trial Court for discharge and if he fails to succeed there, then only he has to approach this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Thirdly, he contended that when the civil matters are pending before Civil Courts between the parties then that does not appear to be a bar to file complaint and when the materials placed before Court are sufficient to draw an inference, then such proceedings should not be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contends that if the complaint averments as well as the sworn statement are translated into evidence, then there is no iota of evidence with regard to the nature of abetment by the petitioner on the deceased. The mere averments in the complaint that the accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide and there is harassment to deceased by accused are not at all sufficient unless it is specifically stated that what type of harassment is meted out by accused to the deceased in order to drive him to commit suicide. If there are some materials then on the basis of such facts an ordinary prudent man can come to a conclusion that the overt acts of accused are sufficient to drive a person to commit suicide. In the absence of such materials, the Court cannot proceed against the accused persons.

6. Further added to that, Section 482 of Cr.P.C. gives ample and enormous power to the Court to do complete justice between the