ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to SC.No.224 of 2015, on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and to quash the same.

2. The petitioner is A1 facing trial in SC.No.224 of 2015 for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Sivanesan is the cousin of the defacto complainant. A1/petitioner is a married woman and she has got two children and she used to visit Muneeswaran Temple near the house of Sivanesan frequently. During such time, the deceased Sivanesan had friendship with A1 and over the days it developed into illicit intimacy. While so, A2/Sarathkumar and his mother Amutha, Amutha's friend LW5, Mala, Muneeswaran Temple Poojari - LW4 and Transgender Shanthini become friends and due to the friendship they often visited the temple. That being so, one month prior to the occurrence A1 severed the friendship with the deceased Sivanesan and developed close friendship with A2/Sarathkumar, due to which, the deceased was depressed. On 04.05.2014, the deceased Sivanesan, A1, A2, LW5 and Amutha gone to conduct special pooja at Muneeswaran Temple and there A1 had been close to A2/Sarathkumar leaving deceased Sivanesan. When the deceased Sivanesan started to question the petitioner/A1 she had stated that he is no more needed and she is going to live with A2 and had told him that he may go with any body or he may go and die, due to which the deceased Sivanesan got depressed and on 05.04.2014 at 2.00am he committed suicide by consuming poison. Initially, the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.PC thereafter, investigation has been completed and final report was filed against the petitioner/A1 and A2 for the offences under Section 306 IPC and charge sheet was fled before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the case was taken up in PRC.No.68 of 2015 and committed to the Court of Sessions and made over to the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and taken up in SC.No.224 of 2015. In the final report, the prosecution had cited 12witnesses out of which LW1 to LW12 are the witnesses who have spoken about the relationship between the deceased and the petitioner/A1 and the subsequent relationship between the petitioner/A1 & A2 and they have also spoken about the deceased being rejected by A1 and that they have also spoken about the deceased informing them that A1 had developed friendship with A2 and when the deceased questioned her, she had told him she doesn't want him and that he may go with some body or he may die.

4. LW4 and LW5 had spoken about the incident happened on the early hours on 05.04.2014 and that hearing the conversation of some persons in the house of the deceased, LW1 to LW4 having brought the deceased from his portion in the house and having taken him to Royapettah hospital and spoken about the knowing about the death of the victim/deceased.

5. LW6 and LW7 stood as witnesses for the preparation of rough sketch and observation mahazar at the house of the deceased.

6. LW8 is the Head Constable who had taken the body for post-mortem.

7. LW9 is the Doctor who had admitted the victim and declared him brought dead.

8. LW10 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the petitioner is a married women having two children, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased is stated to have developed illegal intimacy with the petitioner and later having found that the petitioner had developed friendship with A2, the victim had questioned her and when she had asked him to severe the relationship with her, he had out of frustration committed suicide on the next day. Even taking into consideration, the entire evidences on record there is no material to suggest that either the petitioner or A2 abetted the suicide of the petitioner. In order to make out charges for the offences under Section 306, the petitioner should have done any act as defined und