ORDER :

1. Projecting that the petitioners are innocent and thereby seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 & 2 in S.C.No.358 of 2017, which is pending before the Court of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, the present Criminal Petition is filed invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel who argued on behalf of Sri S.Leo Raj, learned counsel on record for the petitioners. Also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing Respondent No.1-State.

3. Notice sent to Respondent No.2 returned unserved with an endorsement “Unclaimed”.

4. The facts of the case as could be perceived through the contents of charge sheet, if narrated in a narrower compass are that the deceased-Vijay Kumar(hereinafter be referred as ‘the deceased’ for brevity) was working as Service Engineer at Whirlpool Company since ten years. Two years prior to his death, the deceased-Vijay Kumar opened an office in the name and style Sri Sai Ganesh Electronics at Krishnapuri colony, West Maredpally. He took agency from Whirlpool company for selling the products of the said company. The accused fixed target to sell their products. The accused started pressurizing the deceased to increase the sales. The accused forcibly supplied material fixing up targets. The deceased, who could not withstand such pressure and could not sell the products as per targets, finally, committed suicide by hanging. Before death, he made a suicide note in which he narrated the harassment of the accused. There is a specific mention that “Memu appu chesi business chestunnamu, meeru chesthe cheyandi ledante chavandi, ledante mee daggara panichese vallanu tisesi kothavallanu pettukondi etc”. Thus, the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby, they committed offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC.

5. Stating that the petitioners are innocent, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner resides at Faridabad and the 2nd petitioner resides at Chennai. There is neither direct or indirect material to connect the petitioners with the crime in question. Learned counsel submits that the role, if any, played by the petitioners, is not specifically stated anywhere, including in the alleged suicide note. Learned counsel further submits that the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 306 IPC and even if the version of the prosecution that the company insisted the deceased to increase sales is taken to be true, that does not mean that the accused have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel also submits that the essential requirements to make out an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC are not present in the case on hand and therefore, the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners for the said offence are liable to be quashed.

6. The submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, is that the deceased was working under the petitioners and the petitioners, who launched a new product, directed the deceased to increase sale of the said product and also fixed targets which the deceased could not withstand. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that though the deceased and his associates approached the concerned and requested not to pressurize them as they are unable to sell the products as per targets, the accused did not show any sympathy and they, on the other hand, instigated the deceased to commit suicide and openly stated that in case they cannot do business, they may die and aggrieved by the words used and the harassment made, the deceased committed suicide and therefore, the trial proceedings should go on.

7. The word “Suicide” is nowhere mentioned in the Indian Penal Code. However, the word “Suicide” can be termed to be ‘Self-Killing’. While Section 309 IPC makes an attempt to commit suicide punishable, Section 306 IP