JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in S.C.No.118 of 2016 on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and to quash the same.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. The petitioner, sole accused in S.C.No.118 of 2016, on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, stood charged for offence under Section 306 I.P.C., seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, is before this Court with this quash petition.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the deceased in this case one Abdul Raheem, son of the second respondent/defacto complainant. He was working in a private courier company along with the petitioner/accused. On 03.09.2015, the deceased borrowed the petitioner’s car and gone to Puducherry, while he was returning back, the car met with an accident. The deceased got the car repaired and handed over the same to the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused not being satisfied with the way in which the car was repaired, insisted the deceased to get the car properly repaired.

3. In the above circumstances, on 18.09.2015, the deceased committed suicide by hanging in his friend’s house. He left two suicide notes alleging that due to the harassment of the petitioner, he is committing suicide. Subsequently, the mother of the deceased filed a complaint. Originally, the crime was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and after investigation, final report has been filed for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and the same was taken cognizance and the matter is pending trial in S.C.No.118 of 2016 on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, to quash the same, the present petition has been filed.

4. Mr.R.Rajarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner is that, the petitioner only insisted the deceased to get the car properly repaired and he never instigated the deceased for committing suicide and it does not amount to abetment attracting the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that from the alleged suicide note left by the deceased it cannot be inferred that the petitioner had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Admittedly, the deceased caused damage to the car and the petitioner only asked the deceased to get the car repaired, and the petitioner has no mens rea to abet the deceased to commit suicide. In the above circumstances, no prima facie case is made out for an offence under Section 306 IPC and therefore the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.

6. Mr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, on the other hand would contend that the petitioner and the deceased were working in the same company. The petitioner’s car was damaged in an accident and the deceased also got the car repaired, despite the same, the petitioner harassed the deceased which ultimately lead him to commit suicide. Two suicide notes left by the deceased clearly shows that only due to the harassment of the petitioner, the deceased committed suicide and therefore the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is clearly attracted.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records carefully.

8. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the deceased borrowed the petitioner’s car to go to Puducherry and on his way back, the car met with an accident, which was not properly repaired by the deceased and hence the petitioner stated to have insisted the deceased to get the car properly repaired, which ultimately led the deceased committing suicide. The prosecution mainly relied upon the two suicide notes of the deceased, the statement of the mother of the deceased and some of the friends of the deceased. The suicide notes said to have been left by the deceased reads as follows:

“TAMIL”

9. From a perusal of the suicide notes, absolutely no offence, mu