( 1 ) HEARD ld. counsel Ms. Krina Thakkar for ld. counsel Mr. Yogesh S. Lakhani for the petitioners -accused, ld. APP Mr. AY Kogje for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and ld. counsel Mr. MJ Buddhabhatti for respondent No. 2.

( 2 ) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of Crpc, the petitioners have prayed that a complaint filed before Paliad Police Station being CR No. 60/2003 by respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), be quashed and set aside.

( 3 ) THE backbone of the contentions of ld. counsel Ms. Krina Thakkar for the petitioners is that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted substantially on facts, even then, there is no element of abetment within the meaning of sec. 107 of IPC emerging and, therefore, the petitioners can not be said to be "abettors" in the commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of IPC. The person who has committed suicide namely Rayeshbhai, at the relevant point of time, was serving as Bus Conductor with Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as GSRTC for short) and undisputedly, both the petitioners were serving as Asstt. Traffic Inspectors with GSRTC (Amreli Division ).

( 4 ) LD. counsel Ms. Krina Thakkar appearing for the petitioners has taken this Court through the facts revealed from the papers of investigation and especially two main documents i. e. FIR and Dying Declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate. It is contended that by virtue of the part of their duty, the petitioners were supposed to check the buses plied by GSRTC and their duties are normally scheduled in advance and they have no control over the route or the area. On 22. 06. 2003, the petitioners as per their assignemnt were supposed to check the buses plying on a particular route and programme of Checking Squad was arranged accordingly by the superiors and, therefore, they had started from Morbi in the morning of 23rd and they had to reach Bhavnagar. One bus of Botad Depot was checked near village Targari at about 14. 45 hours and they found that conductor Rayeshbhai had not issued tickets to three passengers. The said bus was plying between Botad and Surendranagar. Both the petitioners after intercepting the bus, had asked the conductor to hand over waybill which is required to be maintained in accordance with the norms fixed by GSRTC, by closing the same forth with after issuance of tickets. At that time, deceased conductor Rayeshbhai requested the petitioners to permit him to issue tickets to three passengers and also to collect money from them. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners refused to accept the request in a torturous manner. It is not a matter of dispute that the statements of passengers as well as of driver were also recorded and deceased was also informed about the graveness of the misconduct committed by him. As per the case of the prosecution, at that point of time, the deceased conductor had told both the petitioners that if his request i. e. request to permit him to issue tickets to three passengers and accept the money from them, is not acceded to, he may have to consume poison. As per the case of the prosecution, because of refusal to accept the request by the petitioners, the deceased conductor consumed poison after reaching Botad GSRTC Depot and committed suicide on 24. 06. 2003.

( 5 ) IT is not a matter of dispute that even as per the case of the prosecution, both the petitioners were discharging their official duties, that they were not otherwise supposed to accept the request advanced by the deceased conductor. It is true that some of the witnesses and especially the driver of the bus and one more witness has said that the petitioners were told by the deceased conductor that in the event of not accepting the request advanced by him, he may consume poison. It is also on record that one of the accused is said to the deceased that he may be pulled out of a par