Judgment By means of filing this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the chargesheet no. 208/05 and the order of cognizance dated 28.4.2006, passed thereupon by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The said chargesheet is the result of investigation on the basis of FIR No. 285 of 2005 (Crime No.258/05), pertaining to P.S. Ranipur, Haridwar. 2. In brief, the facts are that a first information report was lodged by respondent no.3 Ambrish Singh s/o Dharampal Singh, who is the brother of deceased Anurag Singh. The deceased was an Engineer, posted in Hindustan Lever Factory based at Roshnabad (Haridwar) and used to reside in a rented accommodation in the close vicinity of the factory. The said factory was being run under the supervision of its manager Sri Praveen Pradhan (present petitioner). The petitioner forced the deceased for some wrong doings, where for Sri Anurag Singh was not prepared. On account of failure of Sri Anurag Singh to bow down to the illegal demands of Sri Pradhan, the latter used to insult and disgrace the deceased in front of entire factory staff. This humiliation was brought into the notice by Sri Anurag Singh to his family members, informing that Sri Praveen Pradhan has severely insulted him by hurling filthy abuses, nay he uttered that he (Anurag Singh) is a useless person. Petitioner also spoke to Sri Anurag Singh that “had there been any other person in his place, he would have died by hanging himself’. Lastly, Sri Anurag Singh talked to his family members in the evening of 6.10.2005 on telephone, when he was found bitterly perturbed. His family members persuaded to pacify him but Sri Anurag Singh, because of the ill treatment of the accused, was so desperate that he had given up his desire to live any further. Sri Singh also informed that the petitioner has made his life a hell. 3. On 7.10.2005, Sri Ambrish Singh (respondent no.3) got information that his brother Anurag Singh has committed suicide. He immediately rushed up to Haridwar from his native place Aligarh and came to know that some suicide note has also been left by his brother which the police has taken away. 4. The FIR was lodged on 7.10.2005 at 8:30 PM. 3. On 7.10.2005, Sri Ambrish Singh (respondent no.3) got information that his brother Anurag Singh has committed suicide. He immediately rushed up to Haridwar from his native place Aligarh and came to know that some suicide note has also been left by his brother which the police has taken away. 4. The FIR was lodged on 7.10.2005 at 8:30 PM. Soon thereafter, Sri Pradhan filed a writ petition bearing No.1196 of 2005 (M/B) seeking stay against his arrest, which was granted to him by the Court on 21.10.2005. 5. After investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner, which has been assailed by him, in this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire material available before me in the file. 7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the chargesheet on the basis of a precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 CRI. L.J. 527". In that case, the Hon’bleApex Court laid down the parameters for exercising the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Courts and relying thereupon, it was argued that the instant case is squarely covered within the first yardstick, laid down in the said judgment, which reads as follows: “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 a case against the accused.” 8. Having gone through the contents of the first information report as well as the suicide note (Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit filed by SHO, P.S. Ranipur, Distt. Haridwar), left by the deceased, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the same, which is as below: “I am dying to Praveen Pradhan. He has done too much atrocities. He is very cunning man. He always humiliate and exploitation all the time make me demoralized and made my self respect hurt too much. As he has hurted to Mr. O.P. Agarwal (KPGI) and Mr. CRK Gauri (Project Consultants), he also played his cruelness to me. These persons have also gone, before time, due to him. He always hurt others feeling and he is egoistic and cruel man. I have been daily hurted my self respect. He is always scolding. As he has hurted to Mr. O.P. Agarwal (KPGI) and Mr. CRK Gauri (Project Consultants), he also played his cruelness to me. These persons have also gone, before time, due to him. He always hurt others feeling and he is egoistic and cruel man. I have been daily hurted my self respect. He is always scolding. I have to die solely due to him. I have award my feelings to Mr. Pawan and Mr. Raghu earlier. But his attitude did not change. He always scolded, demoralized and even in front of Amit (Jaymit) he insulted me. He said Anurag is Chutiya as he is working for him and he doubted my dignity. I can’t tolerate any way to my dignity. He always forced me to resign. This can be verified to Minesh Dikwe (who is in Mahendra) that he has forced me to resign. This attitude can be verified with other officers of factory. He is proving me guilty and incompetent after completed entire project successfully. Sd/- Anurag” 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a number of precedents and this Court feels it proper to have regard with all the precedents relied upon and to discuss them one by one. 10. The first case relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel is of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Ram Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1975 SC 175', wherein it was held that for holding the accused guilty, for his implication u/s 107 IPC, ‘intentional aiding’ and ‘activity complicity’ in the crime is necessary. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that in order to constitute ‘abetment’, the abettor must be shown to have ‘intentionally’ aided to commission of the crime. This precedent has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in quite a different context. It was a case of assassination of a lawyer who was going to his house on a bicycle after the court hours. The assailants were hiding themselves to onslaught him. The lady, named ‘Violet’ informed the assailants that ‘Vakil has come’. Upon the information of this lady ‘Violet’, the said lawyer was assailed and assassinated. The trial court as well as the High Court punished ‘Violet’ for the role of instigation of the crime. The assailants were hiding themselves to onslaught him. The lady, named ‘Violet’ informed the assailants that ‘Vakil has come’. Upon the information of this lady ‘Violet’, the said lawyer was assailed and assassinated. The trial court as well as the High Court punished ‘Violet’ for the role of instigation of the crime. But the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “Apart from the words attributed to Violet, there is nothing at all to show that she was aware of the nefarious design of accused Sia Ram and his associates”. So, she was held not guilty for the offence of abetment. This aforementioned theme is quite different from the controversy of the instant case. 11. The next case relied upon by learned senior counsel of petitioner is a Single Judge verdict of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Roop Kishore Madan Vs. State reported in 89 (2001) Delhi Law Times 150'. This was also a case where the lady named ‘Sharon Brady’ committed suicide in utter desperation, which arose out of the disappointment from the insincere and deceiving attitude of her paramour Roop Madan. The lady ‘Sharon Brady’, in her suicide note, held Roop Madan responsible for her death because he deluded her in sundry ways. On the basis of the suicide note, the FIR was lodged against Roop Madan for the offence of Sections 306/107 IPC but the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR, holding that since the deceased had opted to continue to have relationship with a married man, she should have prepared herself to live with the situation. It was also opined that only because of holding Roop Madan responsible by the deceased lady ‘Sharon Brady’ in her suicide note, for her death, mens rea cannot be attributed on the part of accused Roop Madan to incite that lady to commit suicide. So, this way, the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court, in a distinct scenario, is also not applicable to the present controversy. 12. The third precedent on which learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance is that of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gananath Pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa reported in (2002) 2 SCC 619. So, this way, the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court, in a distinct scenario, is also not applicable to the present controversy. 12. The third precedent on which learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance is that of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gananath Pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa reported in (2002) 2 SCC 619. The said case pertains to Section 498-A IPC where defining the word ‘cruelty’, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the concept and affect of ‘cruelty’ varies from individual to individual, depending upon his social and economic status. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that ‘cruelty’, for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC, need not be physical, even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment. So, this precedent is also not exactly applicable to the instant controversy. It can be taken into consideration only to derive the meaning of word ‘cruelty, as has been highlighted above. 13. The next precedent relied upon by learned senior counsel is also of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998", wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when there was a quarrel between the accused and deceased, on which the accused asked the deceased ‘to go and die’, the same itself does not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’, inasmuch as, presence of mens rea is a necessary concomitant of instigation. In that case, deceased committed suicide after two days of quarrel during which such words were uttered by accused, then the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the suicide was not the direct result of quarrel. Although, the suicide note left by deceased showed that he was in great stress and depression, but the statement of his wife transpired that he was a frustrated man and was in habit of drinking. In that scenario, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that charge, framed u/s 306 IPC, against the accused was liable to be quashed, since the ingredients of ‘abetment’ were totally absent. 14. The above precedent is meaningful while considering the suicide note and other circumstances, meticulously for framing the charge against the accused for the offence of Sections 306/1 07 IPC. 14. The above precedent is meaningful while considering the suicide note and other circumstances, meticulously for framing the charge against the accused for the offence of Sections 306/1 07 IPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sanju Singh (Supra),laid down a ratio that mere uttering of the words by the accused to the deceased ‘to go and die’, is not necessarily an instigation for him to implement these words in reality, inasmuch as, in most of times, such words can be uttered in a state of anger at the spur of moment, without having any mens rea. But at the same time, exceptions may be there when the high handedness of the accused, coupled with extremely atrocious and tyrant conduct, constrained the deceased to take this extreme step of committing suicide. 15. In the instant case, the accused Praveen Pradhan was the in-charge Factory Manager while the deceased was also an Engineering Graduate and also a well educated young person. Every time, humiliation, scolding and rebuking, in front of other subordinate staff to a graduate engineer, was unwarranted on the part of accused Praveen Pradhan, who was not only cruel to the deceased, asking him to work in the factory for 16 hours at a stretch, but also having the attitude, as stated above, consistently and persistently coupled with the utterance of the words that “had there been any other person in his place, he would have certainly committed suicide”. So, this was quite an extremely bad and horrifying conduct on the part of the accused towards a highly educated engineer subordinate, which left only two options with him, either to leave the job to protect his self respect or to proceed with this extreme step of ending his life by committing suicide. 16. Learned counsel for the defence has also relied upon an of-late precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Madan Mohan Singh Vs. state of Gujarat and another reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628". This case was pertaining to commission of suicide by a driver, feeling disgruntled by the conduct of the Divisional Engineer Telephones (DET). I have gone through the entire facts as well as the view expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court therein. state of Gujarat and another reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628". This case was pertaining to commission of suicide by a driver, feeling disgruntled by the conduct of the Divisional Engineer Telephones (DET). I have gone through the entire facts as well as the view expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court therein. This precedent is also not befitted to the present controversy because in that case, the driver, who committed suicide, was assigned the task to drive another vehicle than allotted to him. Besides, since he was not punctual and disciplined to do his assigned job of a Chauffer, so once the DET asked him to keep the keys of the vehicle in the office and not to carry them to his home. Certain other minor disciplinary action was also taken against him. Feeling dissatisfied, he committed suicide. In that eventuality, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that DET cannot be held responsible for this suicide, since he did not instigate the driver to opt for this extreme step. If, in such cases, a superior officer will be held responsible to face the trial u/s 306/107 IPC, then it will be very difficult to keep all the subordinates in discipline and to take work from them. 17. In the instant case, the factual matrix was quite otherwise, as is revealed from the statements of father, brother and wife of the deceased, besides, in-depth of the suicide note left by the deceased engineer. Deceased Anurag Singh was a degree holder engineer, a very qualified man and his social and mental aptitude was quite delicate which cannot be assumed at par with that of a driver of a vehicle. This should have always been taken into consideration and kept in mind by the accused while scolding him. Firstly such a qualified man should not have been made to face intense insult and get scolded in front of other subordinates, secondly, if the need of the occasion demanded rebuking, then it would have been in the moderate words. Had there been any delinquency or negligence, on the part of deceased, in discharge of his official duties, undoubtedly, the accused was free to take any disciplinary action against the deceased, but this was not a way, permitted by any stretch of imagination, to deal with the deceased Anurag Singh, who was highly literate and a degree holder engineer. Had there been any delinquency or negligence, on the part of deceased, in discharge of his official duties, undoubtedly, the accused was free to take any disciplinary action against the deceased, but this was not a way, permitted by any stretch of imagination, to deal with the deceased Anurag Singh, who was highly literate and a degree holder engineer. Rather, it is inhuman on the part of petitioner in humiliating, rebuking and scolding the deceased in such a harsh way, which drove him to opt for this extreme step. And as such, this Court finds that there is sufficient evidence on record prima facie to proceed with the trial after levelling the charge against the petitioner-accused. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of “Didigam Bikshapathi and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2008) 2 SCC 403", has held that in case of Section 306 IPC, weightage should be given to the suicide note. In that case also, deceased was a Field Officer under the employment of accused/appellant, who owned a finance firm. On one occasion, accused abused the deceased for a little lapse on his part in discharge of his official duties, as a result of which the deceased committed suicide. Suicide note clearly stated that he was taking such an extreme step because he was unable to bear with the said mental harassment. Appellant submitted that there was no element of abetment, hence offence u/s 306 IPC was not made out. In that controversy, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in view of the suicide note, the offence u/s 306 IPC clearly proved and the High Court has rightly rejected the prayer, for exercising the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 19. Apart from the above precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court, the following precedents, relied upon by learned brief holder for the State, can also significantly be taken note of: - 1. Vijay Kumar Dighe and another Vs. State of M.P. reported in “2000 (2) MPHT 163; 2000 (10) MPLJ 52". 2. Sanjay Singhal and another Vs. State, reported in 2007 CriLJ 4568. 3. Vijay Sakhija and another Vs. State, decided on 18.10.2011 (Delhi High Court) in Crl. Rev. Petition No.414/2007. 20. Vijay Kumar Dighe and another Vs. State of M.P. reported in “2000 (2) MPHT 163; 2000 (10) MPLJ 52". 2. Sanjay Singhal and another Vs. State, reported in 2007 CriLJ 4568. 3. Vijay Sakhija and another Vs. State, decided on 18.10.2011 (Delhi High Court) in Crl. Rev. Petition No.414/2007. 20. The crux of all the above precedents, relied upon by learned brief holder for the State, is enough to divulge that under the pretext of administrative control and discipline, a superior officer cannot be left to enjoy an extreme liberty to make the intense humiliation and scolding inhumanly in front of all the subordinate staff members for a little lapse. He may be free to take any administrative disciplinary action, as per Rules, but cannot be permitted to enjoy the liberty, full of ego, to humiliate a subordinate in a horrifying manner, coupled with the utterance of words that ‘had you been a responsible and a man of honour, you must have been died by now’. This type of tyrant attitude is a clear-cut indicative of instigation to a subordinate for committing suicide. 21. Besides, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra), which has also been relied upon by leamed senior counsel for the defence, has clearly laid down the ratio that interference u/s 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings, should be done very sparingly and only in exceptional cases, with great circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 22. Panoptically what has been stated above, this Court is not inclined to quash the chargesheet in the instant case. This way, the petition is totally meritless and liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed, thereby vacating the stay order dated 14.6.2006 passed by this Court. Let the trial court be informed promptly to proceed with the trial ahead and conclude this already delayed trial as soon as possible, preferably within eight months.