1. This petition has been filed to call for the records in P.R.C.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and quash the same.

2. Mr.S.P.Yuaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are totally two accused in which the petitioner is arrayed as first accused. The first respondent filed a charge sheet charging the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. The impugned charge sheet is manifest, illegal and have no legal legs to stand before the court of law. The petitioner did not do any act which either instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. She was ashamed of her false and she committed suicide. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioner nothing to do with the crime and the second accused only called the deceased in the mike to come to the warden room and as such the petitioner is no way connected with the enquiry conducted by the second accused. There normally during study hours if anybody uses mobile phone, the mobile phone will be taken over by the warden and the next day by warning the student the mobile phone will be returned. As far as the petitioner is concerned, she snatched the mobile phone from the deceased while study hours and it was handed over to the second accused. During the enquiry, the petitioner was not at all present and as such she is no way connected with the alleged occurrence. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the second accused only used the word 'go and die' with the deceased and insofar as the petitioner is concerned, she did not utter any word on the deceased. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Mani Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, J-3 Guindy Police Station, Chennai-32 reported in 2014 (3) MLJ Crl 18.

3. Per contra, Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent police would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as first accused. She is the warden of the hostel. Originally the petitioner joined as Lab Assistant and she is additionally responsible to monitor the students. While being so, on 18.03.2014, she found the deceased was using cell phone during study hours. After snatching the mobile phone, the petitioner handed over the mobile to the second accused. Next day, enquiry was conducted by the second accused along with the petitioner and scolded the deceased with filthy language and instigated her to commit suicide. Therefore she committed the offence along with the second accused thereby instigated and abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Further he would submit that there are incriminating evidence and materials against the petitioner to prove the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. Therefore, he vehemently opposed this petition.

4. Heard, Mr.S.P.Yuaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent police.

5. There are totally two accused in which the petitioner arrayed as first accused. The petitioner was charged for the offences under Section 306 I.P.C on the ground that during study hours, the deceased was using cell phone and seized by the petitioner. Thereafter, it was handed over to the second accused and both conducted enquiry on the deceased and thereby instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the charge.

6. On perusal of the record shows that the petitioner while was working as warden of the hostel of Veltech Dr.Rangarajan & Dr.Sagunthala Rangarajan Engineering College on 18.03.2014, she found that the deceased was using mobile phone during study hours. She seized the cell phone from the deceased and handed over to the second accused who is a Head Warden and Assistant Professor of the said college. The next day namely on 19.03.2014, the second accused called the deceased for enquiry through mike and after attending enquiry she committed suicide by hanging herself at hostel room No.114. A catena of decisions of the H