# Ritu Yadav & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 361
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-29
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 7207 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ritu-yadav-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47826
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 107 & 306 - The Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Sections
156(3), 161 & 482 - Inherent power - at
the stage of deciding the application u/s
482 Cr.P.C. mini trial is not permissible -
when a prosecution at the initial stage is
asked to be quashed, the test to be
applied by the court is as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made prima
facie establish the offence.(Para -20,24 )

Suicide - Charge sheet, impugned cognizance ,
summoning order & entire proceedings -
quashing of - role of applicant No.1 (wife of
deceased) & applicant Nos.2, 3 & 4 (brothers &
maternal
uncle
of
applicant
No.1)
-
distinguishable - applicant No.1 in some illicit
relationship - perusal of suicide note and note
writings of deceased - no iota of evidence
against applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 - no explicit or
implicit role towards abetment - no offence
under Section 306 IPC disclosed. (Para-1 to
21)

HELD:-In the absence of any specific allegation
and material of definite nature or even prima
facie in the FIR, statements of witnesses
recorded during investigation, pointing out any
such circumstances showing any such act or
intention that applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 intended
to bring about the suicide of deceased, it would
be travesty of justice to ask applicants to face
the trial. Charge sheet, impugned cognizance
and summoning order and entire proceedings
quashed only against applicant No.2 ,3 & 4 and
rejected to the extent of applicant No.1. (Para25 to 28 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. partly allowed.
(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

11 All. Ritu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
361
(2022) 11 ILRA 361
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 7207 of 2022

Ritu Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Puneet Bhadauria

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Ram Ashish Pandey

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 107 & 306 - The Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Sections
156(3), 161 & 482 - Inherent power - at
the stage of deciding the application u/s
482 Cr.P.C. mini trial is not permissible -
when a prosecution at the initial stage is
asked to be quashed, the test to be
applied by the court is as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made prima
facie establish the offence.(Para -20,24 )

Suicide - Charge sheet, impugned cognizance ,
summoning order & entire proceedings -
quashing of - role of applicant No.1 (wife of
deceased) & applicant Nos.2, 3 & 4 (brothers &
maternal
uncle
of
applicant
No.1)
-
distinguishable - applicant No.1 in some illicit
relationship - perusal of suicide note and note
writings of deceased - no iota of evidence
against applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 - no explicit or
implicit role towards abetment - no offence
under Section 306 IPC disclosed. (Para-1 to
21)

HELD:-In the absence of any specific allegation
and material of definite nature or even prima
facie in the FIR, statements of witnesses
recorded during investigation, pointing out any
such circumstances showing any such act or
intention that applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 intended
to bring about the suicide of deceased, it would
be travesty of justice to ask applicants to face
the trial. Charge sheet, impugned cognizance
and summoning order and entire proceedings
quashed only against applicant No.2 ,3 & 4 and
rejected to the extent of applicant No.1. (Para25 to 28 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. partly allowed.
(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Geo Varghese Vs St. of Rajasthan &
anr.,Criminal Appeal No.1164 of 2021 (S.L.P.
(Crl.) No.4512 of 2019)

2. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs St. of Maha.
& ors., (2021) 2 SCC 427

3. Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs St. of Maha. &
anr., (2018) 7 SCC 433

4. St. of W.B. Vs Indrajit Kundu & ors., (2019)
10 SCC 188

5. S S Chheena Vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan & anr.,
2010 (12) SCC 190

6. Ramesh Kumar Vs St. of Chhattisgarh, (2001)
9 SCC 618

7. Ude Singh & Ors. Vs St. of Har. Crl. Appeal
No.233 of 2010

8. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Akhil Sharda & ors.,
Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2022 with Criminal
Appeal No.841 of 2022

9. St. of Karn. Vs L. Muniswamy & ors.

10. M/s.Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & ors.
Vs Mohd. Sharaful Haque & anr.,

11. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & anr. Vs
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & ors.,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has
been moved by applicants, namely, Ritu
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Yadav, Sunil @ Guddu, Sachin @ Chhotu
and Kamlesh Kumar challenging the charge
sheet No.01 dated 18.01.2022 arising out of
Case Crime No.419 of 2021, under Section
306 IPC, Police Station- Jaswant Nagar,
District- Etawah and cognizance order passed
by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.2, Etawah dated 15.02.2022 and
entire proceedings of this case.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the
aforesaid
application
are
that
a
first
information report was lodged at police
station- Jaswant Nagar, District- Etawah on
03.10.2021 by opposite party No.2 Munni
Devi with the averments that the marriage of
his son Rahul Yadav was solemnized with
Ritu Yadav in the year 2010. Ritu Yadav lived
happily with her son only for some period.
After that she started torturing her son. On
10.08.2021 Ritu Yadav, Sanjay @ Guddu,
Sachin @ Chhotu, both son of Keshav Dayal
and Kamlesh maternal uncle of Ritu Yadav
tortured her son and scuffled with him.
Aggrieved with the torture at the hands of the
aforesaid persons her son Rahul Yadav has
committed suicide on 24.08.2021 at about
11:00 am. During the course of investigation,
a suicide note was recovered by investigating
officer allegedly written by the deceased
Rahul Yadav, which is enclosed as Annexure
No.9. I.O. recorded the statements of
witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., inquest
report was prepared and post mortem was
conducted on the body of the deceased and
post mortem report was prepared, in which
ligature mark of 20cm x 01.5 cm size on the
neck, above thyroid cartilage was shown as
ante mortem injury. Cause of death was
mentioned as asphyxia due to hanging.

3. After completion of investigation,
investigating
officer
reached
to
the
conclusion
that
the
deceased
had
committed suicide and I.O. submitted
charge sheet against all the applicants,
namely, Ritu Yadav, Sunil @ Guddu,
Sachin @ Chhotu and Kamlesh for the
offence under Section 306 IPC. Learned
Magistrate concerned took the cognizance
on the aforesaid charge sheet on 15.02.2022
and summoned all the four accused persons
for trial under Section 306 IPC. Aggrieved
with submission of charge sheet and
cognizance order, applicants moved this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Heard Shri Puneet Bhadauria,
learned counsel for the applicants, Shri
Ram Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for
opposite party No.2, Shri Mthilesh Kumar,
learned AGA and carefully perused the
record.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for
the applicants submitted that applicant
No.1 Ritu Yadav is wife of deceased Rahul
Yadav,
who
has
committed
suicide,
applicant Nos.2 and 3 are brothers of
applicant No.1 and applicant No.4 is
maternal uncle of applicant No.1 and no
offence under Section 306 IPC is made out
against any of the applicants. It is further
submitted that after the death of deceased
Rahul Yadav, his real brother Nishu Kumar
son of Suresh Kumar informed the police
of P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District- Etawah and
his information was entered in G.D. of
police station, which is annexed as
Annexure No.3. Learned counsel for the
applicants submitted that in aforesaid
information, which is entered in G.D. on
24.08.2021 at 21:31, it is nowhere informed
by Nishu Kumar that any of the applicants
was responsible for the death of deceased
and it is also specifically informed that wife
of deceased had gone to house of her
brothers
in
Delhi
with
children
on
22.08.2021 on the eve of Raksha Bandan
festival and his brother was alone in the
11 All. Ritu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
363
house. Learned counsel for the applicants
vehemently submitted that the information
provided by brother of deceased itself
shows that at the time of alleged occurrence
of suicide, applicants were not with him
and wife of deceased had already gone to
her brother's place in Delhi before two day.
Hence, there was no reason or occasion on
the part of the applicants to make any sort
of abetment for compelling him to commit
suicide. It is also submitted that the
marriage of applicant No.1 and deceased
was solemnized in the year 2011. Hence,
the occurrence took place after 10 years of
marriage.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants
also submitted that as per averments of first
information report, altercation of the
deceased with applicants had taken place
on 10.08.2021 while the death of the
deceased occurred on 24.08.2021 i.e. after
14 days of the said altercation and first
information report by mother of the
deceased opposite party No.2 was lodged at
police station on 03.10.2021 i.e. after
nearly one and half months. This delay in
lodging the FIR is nowhere explained by
the prosecution.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants
next submitted that in fact after the death of
the deceased, his wife applicant No.1 on
22.09.2021
moved
an
application
(Annexure No.4) against opposite party
No.2 mother of the deceased and Nishu
brother of the deceased under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging FIR against
them. On that application, learned court
below called for report. Police submitted
report on 28.09.2021 (Annexure No.5), in
which it is specifically stated that after
indepth inquiry, no evidence of abetment to
commit suicide is surfaced. Consequently,
the application moved by applicant No.1
u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected vide order
dated
06.10.2021
(Annexure
No.6).
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
emphatically submitted that after rejection
of aforesaid application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
first information report was lodged by
opposite party No.2 to save skin of herself
and her family and on the basis of false
incident dated 10.08.2021, showing in FIR,
all the applicants were implicated falsely.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submitted that first of all the brother
of deceased Nishu Kumar did not disclose
any fact with regard to the abetment on the
part of the applicants, when he provided
information of death of his brother to the
police station, which is entered in G.D.
Moreover, if for the sake of argument, the
averments made in FIR are taken as true
even then no case under Section 306 IPC is
made. In the FIR a false incident of
altercation between deceased Rahul Yadav
and applicants is said to have taken place
on 10.08.2021 and alleged suicide of Rahul
Yadav was committed on 24.08.2021.
There is nothing on record that in the
interregnum period of 14 days any act of
abetment is committed by any of the
applicants. Apart from it, the information
provided by Nishu Kumar to police station
(Annexure No.3) goes to show that before
two days of the death of the deceased, his
wife had gone to Delhi with children on the
occasion of festival of Raksha Bandan.
Hence, it is admitted fact that at the time of
death on 24.08.2021, none of the applicants
was with the deceased.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants
also submitted that a suicide note is left by the
deceased, which is enclosed as Annexure
No.9. Entry of suicide note is made in case
diary. In entire suicide note, none of the
applicants is made responsible by the
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased. There is nothing in the suicide note
to suggest that applicants were responsible for
commission of suicide. Hence, on the basis of
suicide note, no offence is made out against
the applicants u/s 306 IPC and I.O. also has
written in case diary (Annexure No.12) that
nobody was held responsible by Rahul Yadav
in his suicide note and nothing is written about
his wife. Even then, the investigating officer
submitted charge sheet against all the
applicants u/s 306 IPC, which is result of poor
investigation and it is abuse of process of law.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants
lastly made legal argument that suicide was
committed after 14 days of alleged occurrence
in FIR dated 10.08.2021. Hence, there was no
proximity of time and live link between the
alleged occurrence within interregnum period
of 14 days and there was no positive act on the
part of the applicants, which can be termed as
abetment. Apart from it, since it is admitted
fact of prosecution that on 24.08.2021
applicant No.1 had gone to Delhi and was not
with her husband, there cannot be any
instigating act on the part of his wife. Hence,
learned Magistrate had also taken cognizance
without considering the aforesaid position of
law. Hence, the submission of the charge sheet
by
investigating
officer
and
impugned
cognizance order passed by learned Magistrate
are bad in the eye of law and liable to be
quashed.

11. Learned counsel for the applicants
relied on following judgements:-

(i) Geo Varghese Vs. State of
Rajasthan and another, delivered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1164 of 2021(arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)
No.4512 of 2019);

(ii)
Arnab
Manoranjan
Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, (2021) 2 SCC 427;

(iii) Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke
Vs. State of Maharashtra and another
(2018) 7 SCC 433;

(iv) State of West Bengal Vs.
Indrajit Kundu and others (2019) 10
Supreme Court Cases 188;

(v) S S Chheena Vs. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan and another 2010 (12)
SCC 190;

(vi) Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618.

12. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the applicants that in the aforesaid
pronouncements, it is held that if there is
harassment then mere harassment does not
come within the purview of instigation.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
submitted that for instigation, ingredients
of Section 107 IPC should be there. In this
present case, suicide of deceased had taken
place after 14 days of the alleged
occurrence dated 10.08.2021 in FIR and it
is admitted fact on the day of suicide
applicants
were
not
there
with
the
deceased, hence, there was no positive
action on the part of the applicants, which
is proximate to the time of the occurrence
and ingredients of Section 107 IPC are not
there.

13. Learned counsel for opposite
party No.2 and learned AGA Shri Mithlesh
Kumar submitted that although in suicide
note (Annexure No.9) the deceased has not
openly made responsible to any person by
name for his death but in the background, it
was mainly illicit relationship of his wife
applicant
No.1. Learned
counsel
for
opposite party No.2 in this regard invited
the attention of this Court towards a note
written
by
deceased
Rahul
Yadav
approximately before two years of his
death, which is filed by way of counter
affidavit by opposite party No.2 as
11 All. Ritu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
365
Annexure No.CA-2 and is part of case
diary. It is clearly mentioned in this
aforesaid note that his wife was having
illicit relationship and she was not a lady of
good character. Due to which the deceased
was perturbed and that was a real abetment
due to which, ultimately the deceased
committed suicide. Learned counsel argued
that it is not necessary that the act of
abetment should be a single act, it may be a
series of acts or it may be continuous
abetment as in this case as the wife of
deceased applicant No.1 was in illicit
relationship that can be a continuous
abetment
for
any
husband.
Hence,
investigating officer has rightly submitted
the charge sheet and learned court below
has
rightly
taken
cognizance
and
summoned the applicants for trial for the
offence under Section 306 IPC. Learned
counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned
AGA submitted that at the stage of taking
cognizance of the offence on submission of
charge sheet, the court has to see whether
any prima facie offence is made out against
the accused or not and only prima facie
offence is to be seen and the defence of
accused is not to be considered at the stage
of cognizance. Hence, there is no illegality
or infirmity in the submission of the charge
sheet
and
impugned
order
taking
cognizance,
which
calls
for
any
interference by this Court.

14. Section 306 of IPC makes
abetment of suicide a criminal offence and
prescribes
punishment
for
the
same.
Abetment is defined under Section 107 of
IPC which reads as under :-

"107. Abetment of a thing - A
person abets the doing of a thing, who-

First.--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.

Explanation 1.--A person who, by
wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is
bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a
thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing. Explanation 2.--
Whoever either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that
act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

15. The scope and ambit of Section
107 IPC and its co-relation with Section
306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by
Apex Court. In the case of S.S.Cheena Vs.
Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr., it was
observed as under:-

"Abetment involves a mental
process
of
instigating
a
person
or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of
the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature
and the ratio of the cases decided by the
Supreme Court is clear that in order to
convict a person under Section 306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit
the offence. It also requires an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option and that act must
have been intended to push the deceased
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
into such a position that he committed
suicide."

16. In a recent pronouncement, a twoJudge Bench of the Apex Court in the case
of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. 3, while
considering the co-relation of Section 107
IPC with Section 306 IPC has observed as
under :-

"47. The above decision thus
arose in a situation where the High Court
had declined to entertain a petition for
quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the
14 (2014) 4 SCC 453 PART I 33 Cr.P.C.
However,
it
nonetheless
directed
the
investigating agency not to arrest the
accused during the pendency of the
investigation.
This
was
held
to
be
impermissible by this Court. On the other
hand, this Court clarified that the High
Court if it thinks fit, having regard to the
parameters for quashing and the self
restraint
imposed
by
law,
has
the
jurisdiction to quash the investigation
―and may pass appropriate interim orders
as thought apposite in law. Clearly
therefore, the High Court in the present
case has misdirected itself in declining to
enquire prima facie on a petition for
quashing whether the parameters in the
exercise of that jurisdiction have been duly
established and if so whether a case for the
grant of interim bail has been made out.
The settled principles which have been
consistently reiterated since the judgment
of this Court in State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal (Bhajan Lal) include a situation
where the allegations made in the FIR or
the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the
accused.
This
legal
position
was
recentlyreiterated in a decision by a twojudge Bench of this Court in Kamal Shivaji
Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra.

48. The striking aspect of the
impugned judgment of the High Court
spanning over fifty-six pages is the absence
of any evaluation even prima facie of the
most basic issue. The High Court, in other
words, failed to apply its mind to a 15 1992
Supp. 1 SCC 335 16 (2019) 14 SCC 350
PART I 34 fundamental issue which needed
to be considered while dealing with a
petition for quashing under Article 226 of
the Constitution or Section 482 of the
CrPC. The High Court, by its judgment
dated 9 November 2020, has instead
allowed the petition for quashing to stand
over for hearing a month later, and
therefore declined to allow the appellant''s
prayer for interim bail and relegated him to
the remedy under Section 439 of the CrPC.
In the meantime, liberty has been the
casualty. The High Court having failed to
evaluate
prima
facie
whether
the
allegations in the FIR, taken as they stand,
bring the case within the fold of Section
306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, this
Court is now called upon to perform the
task."

17. At this stage, this Court may also
refer to another recent judgment of a two-
Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case
of Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana on 25th July, 2019 passed in Crl.
Appeal No.233 of 2010, which elucidated
on the essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 306 IPC in the following
words:-

"16. In cases of alleged abetment
of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or
indirect
act/s
of
incitement
to
the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be
disputed that the question of cause of a
11 All. Ritu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
367
suicide, particularly in the context of an
offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
vexed one, involving multifaceted and
complex attributes of human behaviour and
responses/reactions.
In
the
case
of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the
Court would be looking for cogent and
convincing proof of the act/s of incitement
to the commission of suicide. In the case of
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of
the deceased by another person would not
suffice unless there be such action on the
part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an
offending action ought to be proximate to
the time of occurrence. Whether a person
has abetted in the commission of suicide by
another or not, could only be gathered from
the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding
out if a person has abetted commission of
suicide by another; the consideration
would be if the accused is guilty of the act
of instigation of the act of suicide. As
explained and reiterated by this Court in
the decisions above-referred, instigation
means to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been
hypersensitive and the action of accused is
otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce
a similarly circumstanced person to commit
suicide, it may not be safe to hold the
accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But,
on the other hand, if the accused by his acts
and by his continuous course of conduct
creates a situation which leads the
deceased perceiving no other option except
to commit suicide, the case may fall within
the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the
accused plays an active role in tarnishing
the self-esteem and self-respect of the
victim, which eventually draws the victim to
commit suicide, the accused may be held
guilty of abetment of suicide. The question
of mens rea on the part of the accused in
such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the
accused and if the acts and deeds are only
of such nature where the accused intended
nothing more than harassment or snap
show of anger, a particular case may fall
short of the offence of abetment of suicide.
However, if the accused kept on irritating
or annoying the deceased by words or
deeds until the deceased reacted or was
provoked, a particular case may be that of
abetment of suicide. Such being the matter
of delicate analysis of human behaviour,
each case is required to be examined on its
own facts, while taking note of all the
surrounding factors having bearing on the
actions and psyche of the accused and the
deceased."

18.

In
the
backdrop
of
the
circumstances and material on record of
this case, the role of applicant No.1 (wife
of the deceased) and applicant Nos.2, 3 and
4 (brothers and maternal uncle of applicant
No.1) are distinguishable. Although the
deceased has not named any person in
suicide note to be held responsible for his
act of suicide, yet it is logical to read the
contention of suicide note in the light of
writing notes by deceased, as filed by
opposite party No.2 as Annexure No.CA-2
in his counter affidavit, which suggests that
according to the deceased, his wife
applicant
No.1
was
in
some
illicit
relationship and this fact made him
perturbed and ultimately led to commission
of suicide. Hence, as a matter of fact, she
had actively facilitated in the commission
of suicide. What is required to constitute
abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC
is that there must be an allegation of either
direct or indirect act of incitement to the
commission of offence of suicide. It is not
always necessary that ''a single act' should
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
constitute abetment. Abetment may be
continuous by the conduct of abettor as
seems in the case in hand. Every case
should be examined on its own facts and
circumstances and keeping in consideration
the surroundings circumstances, which may
have bearing on the alleged action of the
accused and the pysche of the accused.

19. If this Court goes by the contents
of suicide note in the light of note writings
of deceased (Annexure No.CA-2) then it
can be transpired that there was question of
chastity of applicant No.1, which was
hovering in the mind of the deceased and
caused abetment continuously increasing
with the passage of time. This Court is not
agreeable with the argument advanced by
the learned counsel for the applicants that
no person is named in suicide note who can
be held responsible for his death. Because
whatever written in the suicide note
depends upon the mental state of the person
at the time of commission of suicide.
Circumstances in the backdrop of the
suicide note are subject to evidence which
shall be led by the prosecution during the
trial. Doors of evidence cannot be shut and
opportunity of evidence leading to the
circumstances of the death of the deceased
should not be closed at the outset as in the
case in hand where the contents of suicide
notes and note writings of deceased, as
discussed above, indicate that deceased had
in so many words allegated applicant No.1,
for his act to commit suicide. Hence, in the
cases on which applicants have relied upon
do not apply to the facts of this case at this
stage because prosecution has yet to get
opportunity to lead evidence.

20. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal
Appeal No.840 of 2022 with Criminal
Appeal No.841 of 2022 State of Uttar
Pradesh and another Vs. Akhil Sharda
and and others has recently held that at
the stage of deciding the application u/s
482 Cr.P.C. mini trial is not permissible.
Hence, the aforesaid legal position does not
permit this court to quash the charge sheet,
cognizance order and proceedings of this
case against applicant No.1, who is wife of
the deceased.

21. As far as the applicant No.2, 3 and
4 are concerned, this is admitted fact that
applicant No.2 and 3 are brothers of
applicant No.1 and applicant No.4 is her
maternal uncle. With regard to applicant
Nos.2, 3 and 4, there is no evidence on
record which can show their involvement
in the act of abetment. Combined perusal of
the suicide note and note writings of
deceased (Annexure No.CA-2) nowhere
suggests that applicant No.2, 3 and 4
committed any act, either explicit or
implicit, which can come within the
purview of definition of abetment as
contemplated under Section 107 IPC. If
there is allegation in note writings of
deceased against brothers of applicant No.1
that they had beaten the deceased or
allegation by opposite party No.2 in FIR
that on 10.08.2021, applicant Nos.2, 3 and
4 misbehaved and scuffled with the
deceased, it cannot be said to be an act of
abetment for committing suicide. Hence,
there is no iota of evidence against
applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 even learned
counsel for opposite party No.2 could not
point out any explicit or implicit role of
applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 towards abetment.

22. The following observations made
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy &
Ors. may be relevant to note at this stage:-

"The whole some power under
Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court
11 All. Ritu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
369
to quash a proceeding when it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process
of the Court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The High Courts have been
invested with inherent power, both in civil
and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary
public purposes. A Court proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution. The
Court observed in this case that ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law
though
justice
must
be
administered
according to laws made by the legislature."

23. In the case of M/s.Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs.
Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr., Apex
Court observed as under :-

"It would be an abuse of process
of the court to allow any action which
would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercise of the
powers court would be justified to quash
any
proceeding
if
it
finds
that
initiation/continuance of it amounts to
abuse of the process of court or quashing of
these proceedings would otherwise serve
the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a
complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged
and whether any offence is made out even if
the allegations are accepted in toto."

24. Again in Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia
&
Anr.
Vs.
Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., Hon'ble
Apex Court observed in paragraph 7 as
under :-

"7. The legal position is wellsettled that when a prosecution at the
initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test
to be applied by the court is as to whether
the uncontroverted allegations as made
prima facie establish the offence. It is also
for the court to take into consideration any
special features which appear in a
particular case to consider whether it is
expedient and in the interest of justice to
permit a prosecution to continue. This is so
on the basis that the court cannot be
utilised for any oblique purpose and where
in the opinion of the court chances of an
ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore,
no useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing
a
criminal
prosecution
to
continue, the court may while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case
also quash the proceeding even though it
may be at a preliminary stage."

25. Hence, in the absence of any
specific allegation and material of definite
nature, it would be travesty of justice to ask
applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 to face the trial. In
the absence of any material or even prima
facie in the FIR, statements of witnesses
recorded during investigation, pointing out
any such circumstances showing any such
act or intention that applicant Nos.2, 3 and
4 intended to bring about the suicide of
deceased Rahul Yadav, it would be absurd
to even think that applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4
had any intention to place the deceased in
such circumstances due to which he
committed suicide.

26. In the light of above discussion,
this Court finds no ground to continue the
proceedings of this case against applicant
Nos.2, 3 and 4 and put them on trial when
no offence under Section 306 IPC is
disclosed against them. Hence, no useful
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
purpose is likely to be served by allowing
the criminal prosecution against them.

27.

Hence,
the
charge
sheet,
impugned cognizance and summoning
order and entire proceedings in pursuance
thereof are hereby quashed only against the
applicant No.2 Sunil @ Guddu Son of
Keshav Dayal, Applicant No.3 Sachin @
Chhotu son of Keshav Dayal and Applicant
No.4 Kamlesh Kumar son of Lal Singh
Yadav.

28. Accordingly, this application u/s
482 Cr.P.C. is rejected to the extent of
applicant No.1 Ritu Yadav and partly
allowed with regard to Applicant No.2
Sunil, Applicant No.3 Sachin @ Chhotu
and applicant No.4 Kamlesh Yadav.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 370
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 10465 of 2009

Lal Bahadur Mishra & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Sumit Goyal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Sri S.R. Verma

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 452, 323, 504 & 506 - The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Inherent power - criminal proceedings
maliciously instituted with ulterior motives
can be quashed while exercising the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.(Para - 14)
FIR lodged by applicant No. 1 - against opposite
party No. 2 and his family members - regarding
death of his daughter - Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
was dismissed on basis of malafide intention
and ulterior motive - Applicants entered house
of opposite party No. 2 - started beating him -
intervention - returned back - abused and
threatened - during investigation - allegation -
in respect of house trespass and beating as well
as of threatening - found false.(Para - 16)

HELD:-When during investigation, genesis of
occurrence found false then ancillary incident
cannot stand alone. Charge sheet filed only u/s
504 IPC & proceeding against applicants in
pursuance of charge sheet is bad,is quashed.
(Para -16 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Haryana & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors. ,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

2. M/s. Neeharika Inrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St.
of Maha. & ors. ,AIR 2021 SC 1918

3. Vineet Kumar Vs St. of U.P. ,2017(5) ADJ
438 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.)

1. Case called out in the revised list.
None is present on behalf of the opposite
party No. 2 even in the revised call.

2. Heard Sri Sumit Goyal, learned
counsel for the applicants; Sri M.P.S. Gaur,
learned AGA for the State-respondent and
perused the record of the case.

3. The present Application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants for
quashing the charge sheet and proceedings
of Case No. 2507 of 2008 under Section
504 IPC, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar
arising out of case crime No. 287 of 2007
pending before ACMM-Ist, Kanpur Nagar.