To establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, specific intent and action must be proven; mere allegations or familial disputes are insufficient.

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.21 of 2022 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Senior Civil Judge at Medak, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed memo vide USR.No.17618 of 2025 wherein, it is stated that he sent personal notice to respondent No.2 by way of registered post and acknowledgment due on 11.02.2025 and the same was delivered to respondent No.2 on 13.02.2025 and enclosed the postal track report along with said memo. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2, has not chosen to enter appearance.

3. Heard Mr. N. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

4. Facts giving rise to filing of the present criminal petition are that basing upon the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2, dated 12.07.2019, Crime No.67 of 2019 was registered against one Maskuri Yadamma and 4 others. The Investigating Officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, and after conducting the investigation filed final report against petitioners by deleting the name of Maskuri Yadamma, before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Narsapur on 23.08.2019 and the said Court has taken cognizance against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 and the same was committed to the competent court i.e., Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Senior Civil Judge at Medak and numbered as SC.No.21 of 2022.

5. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS

5.1. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients for the offence under Section 306 of IPC were not attracted against the petitioners.

5.2. He further submitted that the alleged incident was occurred on 08.07.2019, and victim died on 11.07.2019 and respondent No.2 lodged complaint on 12.07.2019, after lapse of more than 4 days of alleged incident. He also submitted that investigating officer did not record the dying declaration of the victim nor recovered any suicide note from the victim. He further submitted that there are no allegation much less specific allegation against the petitioners that they provoked and instigated the deceased to commit suicide and also there is no abetment on their part, to attract the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC . In the absence of requisite ingredients as envisaged under Section 107 of implicating the petitioners for the offence under of is not permissible under law.

5.3. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the 161 statement, the dispute in respect of Maskuri Job (Vathan), petitioners are not having any role to appoint the victim or his family members to the post of Maskuri Job (Vathan) and the competent authority is only Tahsildar. Even if Maskuri Yadamma or her family members are enjoying the benefits of Maskuri Job (Vathan) in the place of victim or her family members, either victim or the defacto complainant ought to have made complaint to the competen