Abetment under S.306 IPC requires explicit acts of instigation or support; mere humiliation is insufficient.

1. In the present Criminal Petition, filed under S.482 Cr.P.C., petitioners, who are the accused in Cr.No.140 of 2013 of Rajupalem Police Station, Guntur, are praying for quashment of the First Information Report registered against them for the alleged offences under S.306 r/w 34 IPC.

2. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

3. Though, initially, the First Information Report came to be registered under S.174 Cr.P.C., subsequently, the same had been altered by incorporating S.306 r/w 34 IPC.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the very registration of the crime under the said provisions of law is a patent abuse of process of law. In elaboration, it is further contended that there are absolutely no ingredients of the above Sections of law in the entire complaint, as such, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners herein is impermissible.

5. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the following judgments:
1) 2002 (1) ALD (Crl) 812
2) (2010) 1 SCC 750 : (AIR 2010 SC 327)
3) (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010 AIR SCW 5101)
4) (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2010 AIR SCW 4938)
5) AIR 1992 SC 604

6. On the contrary, vehemently opposing the present Criminal Petition, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, Sri S.Venkata Sainath, contends that, in the absence of any one of the contingencies of S.482, Cr.P.C., the present Criminal Petition deserves no consideration. It is further contended that, in view of the prima facie allegations contained in the complaint, petitioners herein cannot invoke the provisions of S.482 Cr.P.C. and need to undergo the process of trial before the learned Magistrate. It is further submitted that the aspect of mens rea cannot be gone into in the present Criminal Petition and, eventually, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor prays this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. In the above backdrop, now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is:
"Whether the petitioners herein are entitled for any relief from this Court under S.482 Cr.P.C.?"

8. The provisions of law, which are germane and relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issue, in the present Criminal Petition, are S.107, S.108 and S.306 IPC. S.107 IPC, which deals with the abetment of a thing, stipulates as follows: Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
(Firstly) - Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Secondly) - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly) - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. S.108 IPC defines the term ''Abettor'', which reads thus:
108. Abettor. - A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. S.306 IPC deals with the punishment for abetment of suicide and the same stipulates as follows:
306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

9. It is very much obvious and evident from a reading of S.107 IPC that, undoubtedly, the present case does not fall under the first and second contingencies of the said pro