Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Allegation against appellant was that the son of the complainant committed suicide due to mental harassment meted out by the appellant – Appellant was physical Training Teacher in the school where complainant’s son was student – Appellant was also assigned responsibility for maintaining overall discipline by the students of the school – The allegations in the FIR was that the appellant had harassed and insulted her son in the presence of everyone due to which he was under deep mental pressure and committed suicide – High Court dismissed s. 482 application for quashing the FIR – Hence the instant appeal – Held: To constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under s.306 IPC, there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide – In the FIR and as also the statement of the complainant recorded by the police, no reasons or cause for the appellant to harass and insult the victim were spelled out nor there were any details with respect to any action on the part of the appellant by which the deceased boy might have felt being harassed and insulted – Appellant in his petition under s.482 before the High Court set out detailed facts and circumstances, which unfortunately the High Court failed to even take notice of much less analyse the same before coming to the conclusion – It was also stated therein that the victim, school student, generally used to bunk his classes and was warned by the appellant and other school staff a number of times – Persistent act of bunking classes was reported to the Principal of the School, who informed the parents of the boy to come to the school – A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate good qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amount to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of suicide by a student – No further overt act was attributed to the appellant either in the FIR or in the statement of the complainant, nor anything in this regard was stated in the alleged suicide note – Thus, no mens rea can be attributed – In the absence of the element of abetment missing from the allegations, the essential ingredients of offence under s.306 IPC do not exist – All these facts were clearly ignored by the High Court while mechanically dismissing the petition under s.482 CrPC on the ground that FIR disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence – High Court was not justified in dismissing the application under s.482 CrPC for quashing the FIR in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Scope of – Held: High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court – The powers being very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in its exercise – The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles – The inherent power vested in the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution – However, the inherent power or the extra-ordinary power conferred upon the High Court, entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court, or the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. Penal Code, 1860: s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Essential ingredients – There must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide.