Important points:
" Section 107 I.P.C defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he first, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
" A dying declaration can be oral and it can be made to a relative or a private person.
" The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who was abetted.
" Suicide reflects a "species of fear". It is a sense of defeat that corrodes the inner soul and destroys the will power and forces one to abandon one`s own responsibility. To think of self-annihilation because of something which is disagreeable or intolerable or unbearable has to be regarded as a non-valiant attitude that is scared of the immediate calamity or self-perceived consequence.

Sruthi was a student who cherished the dream to pursue the profession of a nurse. She belonged to a financially backward family. It is a hard reality that huge amount is needed for pursuing higher education. She approached a bank several times to grant her education loan. The bank rejected her applications. In despair, she committed suicide by consuming pesticide. Two officers of the bank now face prosecution for abetting her suicide.

2. The deceased had consumed pesticide on 17.04.2012. She was admitted in the hospital on the same day. She died at 07.40 hours on 30.04.2012. The autopsy report reveals that her death was due to poisoning.

3. The second respondent, who is the brother of the deceased, gave first information statement to the police in the matter at 08.30 hours on 30.04.2012. On the basis of that statement, Crime No.440/2012 of Kottayam West Police Station was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C'). Initially, the first petitioner was the only accused in the case. Subsequently, the second petitioner was implicated as the second accused in the case. After completing the investigation of the case, the police filed Annexure-A final report (charge sheet) against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 I.P.C.

4. After complying with necessary formalities, the Magistrate concerned committed the case to the Court of Session, Kottayam. The case is now pending before that court as S.C.No.1/2013. The petitioners seek to quash all proceedings in the aforesaid case by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

5. Heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Advocate who appeared for the petitioners and Smt.M.N.Maya, learned Public Prosecutor and also Sri.S.Manu, learned counsel for the second respondent. I have also perused the case diary submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Learned senior counsel who appeared for the petitioners contended that, even if the entire allegations raised against the petitioners in the final report are accepted as true, no offence under Section 306 I.P.C would be made out against them and therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the court. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the second respondent have contended that, the allegations in the final report along with the materials produced by the prosecution would, prima facie, show that the petitioners have abetted commission of suicide by the deceased and therefore, the proceedings against them cannot be quashed at this stage by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code.

7. The first petitioner was the Manager of the Kudamaloor branch of the HDFC Bank and the second petitioner was the Deputy Manager (Credit) of that bank at Kottayam during the relevant period.

8. The allegations against the petitioners, as stated in the final report, are as follows:

(1) As per the norms regarding sanctioning of education loans, no surety is required for granting loan upto an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-but the petitioners insisted that the deceased shall produce surety for availing the loan.

(2) The petitioners rejected the application for education loan submitted by the deceased in the year 2010 on the ground that her mother, who was not even shown as a surety in that application, had liability outstanding to the Lord Krishna Bank.

(3) The first petitioner told the mother of the deceased that if the arrears of loan were paid in the bank, the education loan would be sanctioned. The mother of the deceased remitted the amount of arrears of loan in the bank. Even then, the first accused rejected the application for education loan submitted by the deceased.

(4) When the deceased submitted fresh application for education loan in the year 2011, the first petitioner told her that the loan cannot be sanc