Honble GUPTA, J.–Through these misc. petitions u/s. 482, Cr.P.C., one Judicial Officer and two advocates seek the quashment of F.I.R. No. 94/99, P.S. Kotwali, Dungarpur. (2). The F.I.R. lodged by Prakash Patel, Advocate, on 7.4.99 is reproduced on the next page. ^mijksDr ekeys fuosnu gS fd esjs ft;kth Jh fkoyky th iVsy firk Jh ekaxhyky th ,MoksdsV Fks ,oa Mwaxjiqj o vkliqj dh dksVZ esa odkyr djrs FksA eqfYte 1 ls 4 rd us Lo;a ds ykHkksa gsrq fiNysa djhc ,d ekg ls rax ,oa ijskku dj j[kk Fkk ftlls ijskku gksdj mUgksus Mwaxjijw ds dbZ ofj"B ,MoksdsV i.M;k] kqDyk lk-] jkBkSM+ lk-] Jh ih-,l- o latho lk-] y{eh yky th tSu vkfn dbZ ,MoksdsV dks o eq>s o esjs firkth cM+s HkkbZ lk- Jh gjhk th o ?kj ds lnL;ksa lHkh dks os dgrs Fks fd mDr eqyfte eftLVªsV us :iyky ¼eqfYteku½ dks dgdj esjs fo:) >wBh Qfj;kns ysrk gS rFkk dgrk gS fd esjh dksVZ vkliqj dksVZ ds odhy ds vykok nwljs odhyksa dk eqag ugha ns[kuk pkgrk gwaA rFkk esjs ft;kth dks dgrs Fks fd rq>s fxjQ~rkj dj tsy Hkst nwaxk ,oa eqfYte 2,3 o 4 e`rd Jh fkoyky th us ejus ls igys dbZ ckj odhy leqnk; dks ,oa esjs ifjokj ls dgk Fkk fd eSa mDr eqfYtekuksa dh rax o ijskkfu;ka o vR;kpkjksa ls ,slk yxrk gSA fd ;s eq>s gj rjhds ls >wBk Qlk,saxs thou esa thfor jgus dk dksbZ ekxZ utj ugha vk jgk gS! vkRe gR;k gh eq>s djuh iM+sxh mDr eqfYtekuksa ls ekufld :i ls ijskku gksdj esjs th;kth fkoyky th iVsy ,MoksdsV us vkRe gR;k dj yh gSA vr% Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS fd mDr eqfYtekuksa ds f[kykQ rqjUr dkuwuh dk;Zokgh QjekosaA** During investigation, the police has recorded the statements of various persons and has collected certain documents. (3). The facts which have appeared in the investigation are:- (i) Deceased Shivlal was counsel for Rooplal Harijan in a criminal case pending in the Court of Shri Rameshwar Lal Rohita, Juridical Magistrate, Aaspur (petitioner); (ii) Rooplal did not appear on a date of hearing, which resulted in the forfeiture or the bail bonds furnished by him and initiation of proceedings u/s. 446 Cr.P.C. On appearance of Roop Lal, the Judicial Magistrate disposed of the proceedings u/Sec. 446 Cr.P.C. by imposing a penalty of Rs. 50/-. On the deposit of penalty, Receipt No. 21536 for Rs.50/- was issued. 50/-. On the deposit of penalty, Receipt No. 21536 for Rs.50/- was issued. (iii) On 9.10.98, Rooplal filed a written complaint before the Judicial Magistrate (petitioner) that his advocate Shivlal (deceased)had taken Rs.1000/- from him telling him that he was fined for Rs.500/-, and that Rs.500/- were to be paid to the Judge. On this complaint, the Magistrate proceeded to hold enquiry under Chapter-XV Cr.P.C. The statement of Rooplal was recorded on that very day and the case was directed to be listed on 13.11.98. (iv) Before the next date of hearing i.e. 13.11.98 the Magistrate received a copy of an application, purported to have been filed by Rooplal in the Court of District Judge, wherein it was stated that he had lodged false complaint against his Advocate Shivlal at the instance of some persons. (v) On 13.11.98 Rooplal was not present in Court. When that application came to the notice of the Judicial Magistrate (petitioner) he directed the issuance of notice to Rooplal u/s.344 Cr.P.C. for 29.1.99. On 29.1.99 Rooplal appeared in Court. His further statement u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate. (vi) Shivlal, on coming to know that a case had been filed against him, put in an application before the District and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur on 11.2.99 for the transfer of the case from the file of Judicial Magistrate, Aaspur to any other court. The District Judge directed the office to obtain comments of the officer concerned. (vii) The letter requiring comments reached the Magistrate (Petitioner) on 24.2.99. The same day, he sent his comments denying the allegations made in the transfer application. At the same time, he stated that he had no objection to the transfer of the case from his Court. He however emphasized that Shivlal Advocate had misconducted when he extracted money from his client. (viii) On 6.4.99 deceased Advocate Shivlal Patel filed an application in the Court of Distt. & Sessions Judge, Dungarpur that he did not want to press his application for the transfer of the case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aspur, and his application be dismissed. (ix) On the next morning Shivlal Patel was found hanged in his house. Three papers, said to have been written by him, were found lying in the room. & Sessions Judge, Dungarpur that he did not want to press his application for the transfer of the case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aspur, and his application be dismissed. (ix) On the next morning Shivlal Patel was found hanged in his house. Three papers, said to have been written by him, were found lying in the room. The gist of the letters is that there was conspiracy against him and he was in great mental tension and therefore he was going from this world. (4). Mr. Shishodia, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners, contended that the F.I.R. does not disclose the Commission of an offence u/S. 306 IPC by the petitioner. Pointing out that the Magistrate (petitioner)while discharging his duties had proceeded to hold enquiry on the complaint lodged before him in which it was alleged that the deceased advocate had taken Rs. 500/- from his client saying that the amount was to be paid to the Magistrate, he canvassed that by performing judicial function the Magistrate, can by no stretch of imagination, be said to have abetted the commission of suicide by Shivlal. He submitted that the the offence of abetment is committed when someone either intentionally aids or instigates the commission of the offence by some other person, but in this case the F.I.R. or even the circumstances do not disclose that the petitioner had intended to incite Shivlal to commit suicide. He urged that there is nothing in the F.I.R. against the two advocate petitioners also as to make them accused. Placing reliance on the cases of Swami Prahalad Das vs. State of M.P. (1), Manish Kumar vs. State of Raj. (2), Gautam Raj vs. vs. State of Raj. (3), Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Raj. (4), Brij Lal vs. State (5), Rachapudi Subbo Rao vs. State (6) and Anowar Hussain vs. Ajoy Kumar (7), he submitted that the F.I.R. should be quashed. (5). Learned P.P., on the other hand, citing the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (8) contended that the F.I.R. can be quashed in the rarest of the rare case and as there are allegations against the petitioners in the F.I.R. as also in the suicide note, the F.I.R. should not be quashed. (6). I have given the submissions my thoughtful consideration. (6). I have given the submissions my thoughtful consideration. Before the matter is considered on merits, it is necessary to state the legal position propounded by the Hon`ble Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). Their lordships have illustrated the circumstances in which the F.I.R. can be quashed by the High Court in the exercise of powers u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. Relevant para No. 108 of the report is reproduced hereunder:- ``108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list or myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- 1. where the allegations made in the First Informattion Report 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. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec.155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155 (2) of the Code. 5. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155 (2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted ) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. (7). The instant case has been registered u/s. 306 and 120-B IPC. Sec.306 IPC reads 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 yea- rs, and shall also be liable to fine. (8). The abetment has been defined in Sec. 107 of the India Penal Code which is as under:- ``107.Abetment of a thing -A person abets the doing of a thing, First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other persons or person 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-I.—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-I.—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. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of 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. (9). A reading of Sec.107 IPC shows that the abetment implies a certain deg- ree of activity on the part of abettor either at the time of commission of an act or prior to the actual commission of the offence. The offence of abetment is committed either by instigating a person to commit an offence, or by engaging in conspiracy to commit an offence, or by intentionally aiding a person by an act or illegal omission. Explanation 2 comes into play where the accused facilitates the commission of an act. (10). A person is said to have instigated another to commit an offence when it is established that he had actively suggested or stimulated that another person to act. Abetment by conspiracy implies agreement of two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act not illegal, by illegal means. Abetment by aiding implies that the abettor, prior to or at the time of commission of an act, in fact, facilitated the commission thereof. (vide Explanation 2). Needless to emphasize, mens rea is necessary ingredient of the offence of abetment. See: Swami Prahlad Das vs. State of M.P. (supra), Manish Kumar vs State of Rajasthan (supra), Bhanwar Lal vs State of Rajasthan (supra), Sri Ram vs. State of U.P. (9) and Trilok Chand vs. State of Delhi (10). (11). Now, it is to be seen, if the allegations in the F.I.R. make out the case of any of the above three categories i.e. abetment by instigation, abetment by conspiracy or abetment by intentional aiding. (12). (11). Now, it is to be seen, if the allegations in the F.I.R. make out the case of any of the above three categories i.e. abetment by instigation, abetment by conspiracy or abetment by intentional aiding. (12). The facts are that a criminal complaint was filed by the client of the deceased that his counsel Shivlal had taken Rs. 1000/- from him, saying that he was to deposit Rs.500/- as fine and Rs. 500/- were to be paid to the Presiding Officer of the Court. On this complaint, the Magistrate proceeded to hold an enquiry under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. Can it be said, that, when petitioner Shri Rohita, in exer- cise of his powers, as Magistrate proceeded to hold enquiry on the complaint filed before him, he had instigated or even intended to instigate Shivlal, Advocate to commit suicide. I think, not. It was the legal duty of Shiri Rohita to proceed to hold enquiry on the criminal complaint filed before him. Thus, it is not a case of abetment by instigation. (13). In the FIR it is stated that the deceased Shivlal used to tell the first in- formant that the Magistrates entertained false complaints against him. The investigation papers do not reveal that complaint, other than the one filed by Roop Lal, was entertained by Shri Rohita. It is obvious, except that complaint, no case was filed. Even assuming that the complaint filed by Roop Lal was false, it cannot be taken as an act of instigation on the part of Shri Rohita to commit suicide, by Shri Shiv Lal. As Judicial Officer, it was the legal duty of Shri Rohita to register the crimi- nal complaint filed before him though it might be containing false accusations. (14). The other allegation in the F.I.R. is that the Magistrate used to tell that he did not want to see the faces of the advocates of place other than Aaspur. It is evi- dent that if the Magistrate petitioner had ever observed like that it was for all the advocates who were not the residents of Aaspur. From the allegation, at the most, it can be inferred that the Magistrate did not like the appearance of the outside advocates. Obviously, the alleged observation was not made against the deceased advocate and was not intended for instigating him to commit suicide. (15). From the allegation, at the most, it can be inferred that the Magistrate did not like the appearance of the outside advocates. Obviously, the alleged observation was not made against the deceased advocate and was not intended for instigating him to commit suicide. (15). The next allegation in the First Information Report is that the deceased was once told by the Magistrate that he would be sent behind bars. Several witnesses have been interrogated by the police but none of them states that the Magistrate had ever told either in court or elsewhere that the deceased would be sent to prison. It is significant to point out that this fact is not even stated in the sui- cide note left by the deceased. (16). The above discussion makes it clear that it is not the case where Shri Rohita had instigated or even intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. (17). In the F.I.R. it is alleged that accused no.1 to 4 were harassing Shivilal for the last one month for personal gain. These facts, the P.P. contended, amount to allegation of conspiracy. The conspiracy has been defined in Sec.120-A of the IPC. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. In the F.I.R. there are no allegations that the four accused persons had conspired to do an illegal act. It may be that the deceased might be feeling harass- ment by the fellow advocates or even by the act of his client, who had prosecuted him. But these facts do not constitute allegation of criminal conspiracy. That being so, it cannot be said that there was abetment by conspiracy to the commission of the suicide by the deceased. (18) There are no allegations in the F.I.R. that the petitioners had intentionally aided in the commission of suicide by Shivlal or that they were under some legal obligation to prevent the deceased to do an act and they omitted to discharge that obligation. Thus, it is also not a case of abetment by intentionally aiding. (19). I have gone through the investigation papers. Thus, it is also not a case of abetment by intentionally aiding. (19). I have gone through the investigation papers. The material collected on record is that the deceased had complained to the Advocates of Dungarpur that he was apprehending his arrest on the complaint filed by Rooplal and as he would not be able to defend himself, there was no alternative but to commit suicide. The investigation file reveals that the complaint of Shiv Lal deceased, the advocates of Dungarpur had decided to meet the Magistrate concerned, but it seems, they did not meet him. On the contrary, it appears, they prevailed over the deceased to make an application to the District & Sessions Judge, Dungarpur seeking the withdrawal of his transfer application, and on 6.4.99 Shiv Lal, in fact made an application to the Distt. and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur to withdraw the transfer application filed by him in his Court. (20). It is evident that the deceased was in tension because of the complaint filed against him. His tension got increased as the advocates of Dungarpur did not help him in the matter. Instead, they prevailed over him to withdraw the transfer application. The advice of the advocates, it is possible, made the deceased nervous and losing all hopes, he decided to take extreme step of leaving this world. (21). In the suicide note, the deceased does not say that he was committing suicide because of some active roll of the petitioners. What is written in the suicide note is that Takhat Singh, Gopal Singh, Shri Rameshwarlal (Magistrate), Roopa Bhai Banjara and Rooplal did not like him and many persons were involved in proving the case against him. The facts stated in the note, in my opinion, do not constitute the ingredients of the offence u/s.306 IPC. (22). The Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) has held that where the allegations made in the First Information Report 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 case against the accused the FIR can be quashed. It was also held that where the allegations in the F.I.R. and other material, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by Police Officers the F.I.R. can be quashed. It was also held that where the allegations in the F.I.R. and other material, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by Police Officers the F.I.R. can be quashed. So also, it was observed that if the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the F.I.R. should be quashed. (23). In my opinion, this case falls in all the three categories of the cases illustrated by their lordships. To prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed. I am conscious of the note of caution recorded by their lordships at para no. 109 of the judgment that the power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The instant case, obviously is the rarest of the rare case in which the F.I.R. has been registered against the Magistrate on the basis of the judicial functions performed by him i.e. holding an enquiry under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. on the complaint filed before him. Against the two advocates petitioners also there are no allegation constituting the commission of cognizable offence by them. (24) As a result of the foregoing discussion, the petitions succeed. The F.I.R. No. 94/99 and investigation thereon are hereby quashed.