JUDGMENT : A.K. Samantaray, J. - In this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure., the Petitioner who is accused in G.R. Case No. 132 of 2004 corresponding to Khandapara P.S. Case No. 62 of 2004 u/s 306, Indian Penal Code has approached this Court for quashment of the proceeding in the aforementioned G.R. Case. 2. The brief fact giving rise to the said G.R. Case is as per the FIR lodged by the nephew of the deceased Nibasi Behera is that the deceased was living in the house of his father-in-law at village Jogiapalli as a domesticated son-in-law for the last ten years with his wife and children and he had no difference with his wife and children and he had no difference with his wife at any point of time. On 23.9.2004 the nephew got report that his paternal uncle i.e., the deceased, was hospitalized at Nayagarh Headquarter Hospital and getting this information he went to the hospital in the afternoon at 5 P.M. and found the deceased had sustained injuries in his left hand and behind the right ear and had nail marks on his leg and blood oozing out of his mouth. When the informant asked him as to the cause of hospitalization the deceased gave out that accused Pravat Kumar Dwari and his associates had assaulted him and forcibly made him drink, poison and they had also threatened his wife with dire consequences if she reported the matter to the police. Since the condition of the deceased was precarious the informant remained with him attending to his treatment, but at 7 P.M. in the evening the deceased died in the said hospital and the very next day i.e. 24.9.2004 Kulamani Behera the nephew of the deceased reported the matter at Khandapara Police Station and the police registered a case u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code and took up investigation and during the investigation the Superintendent of Police, Nayagarh supervised the case and found that the case was not u/s 302 but u/s 306, Indian Penal Code. In the meantime, the informant-nephew of the deceased and the wife of the deceased Shantilata Behera sworn affidavit that at the intervention of the gentlemen of the village the matter has been sorted out and there is absolutely no dispute between them and the accused. 3. In the meantime, the informant-nephew of the deceased and the wife of the deceased Shantilata Behera sworn affidavit that at the intervention of the gentlemen of the village the matter has been sorted out and there is absolutely no dispute between them and the accused. 3. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that due to political rivalry existing in the village, the rival party of the Petitioner who is a Sarpanch had used this informant as a tool, after the death of the deceased and implicated in a planned way in the murder case. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the post mortem report there is absolutely no injury on the person of the deceased and no witness has made any statement before the police that the deceased was murdered. The Learned Counsel further took me to the affidavits of the informant and the widow of the deceased and I had directed both of them to appear personally before me and they have appeared and both of them have stated that they have no grievance against the accused and it was specifically stated by the informant that being ill-advised by the rivals of the accused he had lodged an informant in the police station and he had absolutely no knowledge about the cause of death of the deceased and actually the deceased had consumed poison and committed suicide. Shantilata Behera, the widow of the deceased, also stated to my query that the deceased after getting drink quarreled with her and left the house and he had actually committed suicide by consuming poison. Both the informant and the widow of the deceased stated that the accused was no way connected with the death of the deceased and he had only castigated the accused when he created a scene getting drink on the village road and probably feeling humiliated the deceased committed suicide. They also gave out that they are not interested with the prosecution and due to ill-advice such an FIR was lodged which resulted in the institution of the case. 4. Apart from all these, I have perused the Case Diary produced by the Learned Addl. Standing Counsel and there is absolutely no iota of material to make out a case u/s 306, Indian Penal Code, as no role appears to have been played by this accused so as to term it abatement to commit suicide. 4. Apart from all these, I have perused the Case Diary produced by the Learned Addl. Standing Counsel and there is absolutely no iota of material to make out a case u/s 306, Indian Penal Code, as no role appears to have been played by this accused so as to term it abatement to commit suicide. 5. This being the factual admitted position before me supported by materials available in the Case Diary and the informant and the widow of the deceased not being interested in the prosecution and make statement to my querry that they do not want to speak anything implicating the Petitioner in this case, if trial commences, in my view, the entire exercise would be a futile one for no fruitful reason and it would be sheer abuse of process of Court if this FIR and the investigation in connection with the aforementioned G.R. Case is allowed to continue. 6. In the result, I quash the-entire proceeding in G.R. Case No. 132 of 2004 corresponding to Khandapara Police Station Case No. 62 of 2004, pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Khandapara. 7. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed. CRLMC allowed. Final Result : Allowed