JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Vide this order, both the above mentioned petitions, Criminal Misc. No.M-40080 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 580 of 2007, are being disposed of as the controversy involved is the same in both the cases. 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-40080 of 2006 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C. in short) for quashing of complaint titled as ‘Mahender Partap versus Dr.Sanjeev and another’ under Sections 306 and 506/34 IPC dated 11.3.2005 and the summoning order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat dated 15.5.2006. Criminal Revision No. 580 of 2007 has been filed for setting aside the order dated 7.11.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely involved in this case at the instance of the complainant. In fact, the complainant himself is facing the trial under Section 304-B, 498-A IPC in FIR No.11 dated 6.1.2005 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Sonepat. The complainant and others had challenged the order vide which the charge had been framed against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC in this Court and the said petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2005. During the pendency of the said petition, the complaint in question had been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that a suicide note was recovered from the dead body of the deceased- Usha. The suicide note was taken in possession by the Police and as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘FSL), the suicide note was in the handwriting of the deceased. Since a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners under Section 306 IPC, therefore, both these petitions were liable to be dismissed. 5. The contents of the complaint read as under:- “ The complainant begs to submit as under:- 1. That the complainant is permanent resident of above mentioned address and is a law abiding citizen of India. The complainant is an officer of Ist Class and is working in MTNL Delhi. 2. That the son of the complainant namely Dr. Pardeep Kumar was married with Dr. Usha on 22.2.1999 and since then they were residing at Adarsh Nagar, Sonepat. 3. The complainant is an officer of Ist Class and is working in MTNL Delhi. 2. That the son of the complainant namely Dr. Pardeep Kumar was married with Dr. Usha on 22.2.1999 and since then they were residing at Adarsh Nagar, Sonepat. 3. That after 1½ years of the marriage, Pardeep Kumar Dahiya and his wife Usha Rani started living separately from the petitioner and they started their education business. The son of the complainant, Dr. Pardeep Kumar and his wife Smt Usha were running a Para Medical Institute under the name and style of Maharishi Daya Nand Para Medical Institute at Adarsh Nagar, Sonepat. In the above said institute, there were many teachers including the accused persons. A group photo of the staff of the institution, photo copy of salary slip, photo copy of affiliation certificate and photo copy of authorization letter is attached. 4. That the accused persons established their separate Para Medical Institution at Rathdhana Road, Sonepat. The accused persons started harassing and humiliating the son and daughter in law of the complainant by writing letters to the students. They also wrote some defamatory letters against Dr. Usha i.e. daughter-in-law of the complainant. Accused persons also got published some defamatory articles in newspaper against the institution of the deceased Usha. Accused also on 2-3 occasions visited the institution of Dr.Usha and insulted her and her husband. The accused persons also wrote some letters to the parents of the students of the Institution of the son of the complainant, stating that Dr.Usha and her husband Dr. Pardeep had not even deposited the fees deposited by the students of the concerned “University”. The accused persons also alleged in the said letters that the University from which the Institution of Dr.Usha got affiliated is also bogus. 5. That the accused persons also abetted the deceased by saying that deceased Dr. Usha and her husband are cheater and they were deceiving the students by establishing a forged institution. The accused persons had abetted the deceased Dr. Usha and her husband upto such an extent that they had to call a conference and got published that Dr. Ashok and Sanjeev were using defamatory comments against them and their institution without any basis. They also approached the higher Authorities to desist the accused persons from their illegal acts. 6. The accused persons had abetted the deceased Dr. Usha and her husband upto such an extent that they had to call a conference and got published that Dr. Ashok and Sanjeev were using defamatory comments against them and their institution without any basis. They also approached the higher Authorities to desist the accused persons from their illegal acts. 6. That due to the abetment and instigation caused by the accused persons the deceased Dr. Usha who was very depressed which she used to explain to her husband. She also used to utter there was no use of such a life. On 5.2.2005 the deceased Dr. Usha received a telephonic message from the accused person, that they were going to get registered a criminal case against the deceased and her husband Dr. Pardeep Kumar. Ultimately on 6.1.2005 the Usha committed suicide and a suicide note in her handwriting was recovered from her clothes which she was wearing at the time of her admission in the hospital and the time of postmortem examination. The police took the suicide note in its possession. The language of the suicide note is in hindi. “Mai Usha Rani Patni Shri Pardeep Kumar Adarsh nagar yaha byan tang hote hui likh rahi hoo. Mere tang hone ka karan Dr. Ashok joi kee auj sai ask saal pahale tak hamar Ghar mai mare bhai ki tarah rehata tha phir voh 2004 mai yahan sai 60 hazar rupai lai kar chala gaya kujhe us baat per koi baat mehsoos nai hai. Is kai bad January 2005 mai uss kai bare bhai Dr. Saneev Arya joi ki PMO Central Board, Delhi vai NEHO Board Chalate hai joi ki vase to donoi he board in kai hai. Aub January mai Dr. Sanjeev nai aupne bhai Ashok ka ITI Road per Chotu Ram Para Medical Institute Khulwaya aur hamare Institute ko badnam karke us kee chavi kharab ki.Iss kai bavjood jab mere pati nai jawabi karvai ki to unhonai (Dr. Sanjeev Vai Ashok) nai hame jaan sai marne ki dhamki di aur is vajah sai mai kaphi bajjti mahsus kar rahi hue. Hamari Shaher mai aak ijjet thi so in dono bhaiyon nai mil kar mitti mai mila dali and mai in sab karno sai parashan ho kar autam khatya ko majboor hui. Yay autam hatya nai ho kar hatya hai, Mara marne ka Dr. Sanjeev Arya vai Dr. Hamari Shaher mai aak ijjet thi so in dono bhaiyon nai mil kar mitti mai mila dali and mai in sab karno sai parashan ho kar autam khatya ko majboor hui. Yay autam hatya nai ho kar hatya hai, Mara marne ka Dr. Sanjeev Arya vai Dr. Ashok Kumar Jimmadar hai. Mari taraf sai in ko kari saja dilai jaya. Mara marene ke baad mere beti Simmi ka vishash khyal rakha jai. Is sari ghatna mai mare pati Pardeep Kumar vai us ka pura parivar athwa mara mailai ka pura pariwar is ghatna mai ko smbandh nai rakhta hai. Usha Rani 6.1.2005 7. That from the suicide note it is clear that accused abetted/instigated Usha Rani to end her life. Even in her suicide note she has clearly mentioned that Dr. Ashok and Dr. Sanjiv will be responsible for her death and there is no fault on the part of her husband and his parents and even no fault on the part of her parents. From the suicide note it is a clear case u/s 306/34 IPC is made out against the Dr. Sanjeev and Ashok. Even in her suicide note she has clearly written that Dr. Sanjeev and Dr.Ashok should be punished for her death. But police after hobnobbing with Dr.sanjiv and Dr. Ashok and brother of the deceased registered a case u/s 304B/498 A IPC against the complainant, his wife and his son i.e. FIR No.11 dated 6.1.2005 PS Civil Lines, Sonepat. The police has registered a false case against the complainant instead of registering a case u/s 306/.34 IPC against the accused. 8. That however, the police sent the said suicide note in FSL Madhuban for comparison of hand writing of Dr. Usha, deceased. The report has been received which confirms that said suicide note is true and written by Dr.Usha. After comparing the other handwriting of Usha with the suicide note. A copy of suicide note is enclosed herewith. 9. That the complainant approached the police of P.S.Civil Line and also moved an application to the SP Sonepat for registration of case u/s 306/34 IPC against the accused persons but of no use. Hence this complaint. 10. That the deceased Dr.Usha being wife of Dr. A copy of suicide note is enclosed herewith. 9. That the complainant approached the police of P.S.Civil Line and also moved an application to the SP Sonepat for registration of case u/s 306/34 IPC against the accused persons but of no use. Hence this complaint. 10. That the deceased Dr.Usha being wife of Dr. Pardeep were jointly running the said Paramedcial institution and any defamatory comment, act on part of the accused was obviously seriously taken by the deceased which resulted into abetment to the deceased to commit suicide and hence the accused persons have jointly committed offence punishable u/s 306/34 IPC and they are liable to be punished in accordance with law. That even the police was so hurry to submit the challan in the Court without obtaining the FSL report. From this it appears that police was hobnobbing with the accused and the brother of the deceased. 11. That the deceased Dr. Usha was residing at Adarsh Nagar Sonepat where she was running her institution and was abettted by the accused which falls in the area of P.S. Civil lines, Sonepat, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, hence this Hon’ble Court has got jurisdiction to try and entered the present complaint. 12. That the complainant has never filed any such or similar complaint either before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court. It is,therefore, prayed that the accused persons may kindly be summoned, tried and punished u/s 306/34 IPC in the interest of justice. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the complainant” 6. Smt. Usha has died an unnatural death. A suicide note was recovered from her dead body by the Police. As per the FSL report, the said note was in the handwriting of the deceased-Usha. In the said suicide note, the deceased has averred that she was committing suicide and that the petitioners were responsible for her death. Although a case under Section 304-B/498-A IPC is pending against the complainant and others yet it would not be in the interest of justice to quash the present complaint. The complainant has based reliance on the suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased. The fact that whether the petitioners are responsible for the death of the deceased Usha or not would more appropriately be gone into and considered during trial. The complainant has based reliance on the suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased. The fact that whether the petitioners are responsible for the death of the deceased Usha or not would more appropriately be gone into and considered during trial. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to scuttle the criminal proceedings. Prima facie material was available on record to frame a charge against the petitioners. Merely because the revision petition filed by the complainant and others challenging the order whereby charge was framed against them under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC is no ground to quash the present complaint. It would be established during trial as to which of the version i.e the one in the FIR or the one in the present complaint is correct. Hence, no ground warranting interference under Section 482/401 Cr.P.C. is made out. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. ------------