1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 10 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.21 of 2026 of Mutharam (M) Police Station, Ramagundam District, for the offences punishable under Sections 108 r/w 62, 324(4), and 296(b) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short ‘the SCs/STs (POA) Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

               2.1 On 03.03.2026, the de facto complainant, Kethiri Saraiah, lodged a complaint stating that he and his family had been residing in an iron shed situated in the ceiling land and that the petitioners and other accused had been continuously harassing them on the ground that the land belonged to them and demanding them to vacate the premises. It is further stated that, on 02.03.2026, at about 7:30 p.m., the accused persons came to his house, abused him and his second wife Kethiri Laxmi in filthy language with their caste name as ‘erukala lanja lanjakodaka’, thereby insulting and humiliated them in public view. They also criminally intimidated them by giving warning to vacate the house and damaged the walls and roof sheets of their house, caused damage to a tune of Rs.20,000/- and instigated them to commit suicide. Unable to bear the continuous harassment, humiliation, and destruction of the tin shed, Kethiri Laxmi consumed some unknown pesticide poison and committed suicide. Based on the said complaint, the present crime was registered for the above mentioned offences.

3. When this matter was taken up for consideration on 30.07.2026, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to the order, dated 17.07.2026, the concerned Investigating Officer, served notice on respondent No.2 about the filing of the present criminal petition and listing of the matter. In spite of the said intimation, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. However, to give one more opportunity, the matter was posted to 04.08.2026. On 04.08.2026 also, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

4. Heard Mr.K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

               5.1 Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. The petitioners neither provoked nor instigated the deceased to commit suicide, nor they abused the deceased in the name of her caste. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 108 r/w 62, 324(4), and 296(b) r/w 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act are not attracted.

               5.2 Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the de-facto complainant constructed a shed in the land of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and at the request of the villagers, the disputed land was given for construction of a temple and the said issue was placed before the village elders and as per the request of respondent No.2, they were provided the land at another location for construction of a house. The petitioners along with other villagers requested respondent No.2 and the deceased to vacate the premises on the ground that the said land is allotted to a temple. Respondent No.2 in the complaint stated that due to demolition of the shed, they suffered loss to an extent of Rs.20,000/- and after the death of the deceased, another complaint was given, wherein it was shown as Rs.2 lakhs. The allegations levelled in the complaint dated 03.03.2026 and in the subsequent complaint dated 13.03.2026, they had taken inconsistent allegations. He further submitted that there is no abetment on the part of the petitioners as defined under Section 107 of IPC/45 of the BNS and they never instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.

               5.3 In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:

               i) Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny vs. State of Punjab and another (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1058);

               ii) M.Arjunan vs. The State rep. by its Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No.1550 of 2018);

               iii) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998); and

               iv) Shenbagavalli and others vs. The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and another (Criminal Appeal Nos.4268 and 4269 of 2024).

6. Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:

               6.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that at the instigation and provocation of the petitioners and other accused, the deceased committed suicide. The petitioners and other accused abused the deceased victim and respondent No.2 in the name of their caste and beat the deceased indiscriminately and also demolished their tin shed. Due to their instigation, provocation, humiliation and demolition of their shed and abusing them in the name of their caste, the deceased disgusted over her life, consumed pesticide poison and committed suicide.

               6.2 He further submitted that the Investigating Officer examined eighteen witnesses and the investigation is under progress. LW.1, who is none other than the husband of the deceased, and LW.2, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, and eyewitnesses, who were present at the scene of offence, have specifically stated that due to the instigation and provocation of the petitioners, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing the proceedings.

7. Reply submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:

               7.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners alternatively submitted that in the event this Court is not inclined to quash the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer may be directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners, as the petitioners are eking out their livelihood by doing agriculture and they are not having any criminal antecedents and they will cooperate with the investigation.

Analysis:

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2/de-facto complainant is none other than the husband of the deceased and he lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others on 03.03.2026, wherein it is specifically stated that when he and his wife were at their house, the petitioners and other accused came to their house and abused them in the name of their caste by using the words ‘erukala lanja, lanja koduka ikkadi nundi vellipondi, ekkadiki aina poi chachipori’ and beat her indiscriminately and also demolished their tin shed and instigated them to commit suicide. Due to their humiliation and provocation only, the deceased disgusted over her life and consumed pesticide poison and died.

9. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed written instructions along with the documents, which reveal that the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of eighteen (18) witnesses and the investigation is under progress. In the inquest report also, in column Nos.9 and 15, it is specifically mentioned that on 02.03.2026 at 7:30 p.m., the petitioners abused the deceased and respondent No.2 in the name of their caste and also demolished their tin shed, instigated and provoked the deceased victim and due to unbearable humiliation in the public, she consumed poison and committed suicide. The above said allegations levelled in the complaint prima facie attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 108 of the BNS and the offences under the SCs/STS (POA) Act. 10. In Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an offence under Section 306 IPC is made out only when there is a clear mens rea coupled with a positive, active or direct act of instigation or intentional aid by the accused, which leaves the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. The Court further held that mere refusal to marry, by itself, does not amount to instigation within the meaning of Section 107 IPC.

11. In the above said judgment, the allegation was that the accused had refused to marry the deceased, which was held not to constitute instigation within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC. In the present case, specific allegations are levelled against the petitioners that they instigated and provoked the deceased, abused her and respondent No.2 in the name of their caste, and demolished their tin shed and due to their humiliation in public, the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide. These allegations, prima facie falls within the definition of Section 107 of IPC/45 of the BNS. Therefore, the above said judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

12. In M. Arjunan (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the essential ingredients of abetment, namely, that the accused had the intention to instigate, aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Mere use of abusive or insulting language, by itself, would not constitute abetment of suicide. There must be cogent material to show that the accused intended, by such act or conduct, to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation or abetment are established, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out.

13. In sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere words uttered by the accused, such as “go and die”, without anything more, do not constitute instigation within the meaning of Section 107 IPC and are not even prima facie sufficient to attract the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. In the absence of any positive act or intention on the part of the accused to instigate or aid the commission of suicide, the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not made out.

14. In Shenbagavalli and Others (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 306 IPC is attracted only when the prosecution establishes the commission of suicide and the ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC, namely, instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The Court further held that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are abetment and the intention of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Mere use of abusive or insulting language, by itself, does not constitute abetment of suicide unless there is evidence to show that the accused intended, by such act or conduct, to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

15. The aforesaid judgments i.e., M. Arjunan (supra), sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) and Shenbagavalli and Others (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that in the above said judgments, the petitioners/accused therein have filed quash petitions seeking quashing of final reports/charge sheets and especially there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioners/accused therein about the instigation, provocation and abetment of the deceased to commit suicide at their instance. Whereas in the case on hand, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint that they instigated and provoked the deceased, abused her and respondent No.2 in the name of their caste, by using the words ‘erukala lanja, lanja koduka ikkadi nundi vellipondi, ekkadiki aina poi chachipori’, beat her indiscriminately and also demolished their tin shed and instigated her to commit suicide. Due to their humiliation, provocation and abusing her in the name of caste in public only, the deceased disgusted over her life, consumed poison and committed suicide.

16. It is relevant to mention that in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Sup (1) SCC 335), the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so enumerated are illustrative and the power must be exercised sparingly. The said principles were reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others ((2021) 19 SCC 401);, wherein it was emphasized that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and that Courts should not interdict investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR; the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all facts, and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at their nascent stage.

17. Insofar as the alternative submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in the event this Court is not inclined to quash Crime No.21 of 2026, the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation and that this Court may direct the Investigating Officer not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. supra and Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.(2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1170), held that the Court cannot grant a blanket order of “no coercive steps” or “not to arrest”, as such protection is in the nature of anticipatory bail, which must be sought before the competent Court under Section 482 of the BNSS/438 Cr.P.C., and granting such relief while refusing to quash the F.I.R. is wholly impermissible. The record discloses that the petitioners along with the other accused had approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.6812 of 2026 seeking anticipatory bail and this Court dismissed the said anticipatory bail petition insofar as the petitioners herein and granted anticipatory bail in respect of the other accused i.e. accused Nos.5 to 9, considering the fact that they are women, by its order, dated 06.05.2026.

18. Taking into consideration the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrasture Pvt. Ltd and Sanjay Kumar Gupta supra as well as the dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of protection as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the present case, especially there are specific allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners, which prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences, and the investigation is under progress and therefore, interference at this stage would be impermissible.

19. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in Crime No.21 of 2026 of Mutharam (M) Police Station, Ramagundam District against the petitioners by exercising the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS, at this stage.

20. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.