JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 423/2012 of Police Station, Jawahar Nagar District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Section 306 of IPC lodged by respondent no. 2. Vinay Choudhary(complainant) was filed in this Court by all the four accused persons, namely, (1) Ram Kumar, (2) Smt. Kiran Jangid, (3) Mohit Jangid and (4) Rohit Jangid. 2. It has been alleged in the petition that on 28.8.2012, respondent no. 2 had submitted a written report before the concerned Police Station stating that on 25.8.2012 at about 2.30 p.m. his father took sulphas medicine, due to which he became sick and he died on 28.8.2012 while he was being taken to the higher centre. It was alleged by the respondent that accused persons have harassed his father in view of dispute of money transaction due to which his father had to consume poisonous medicine and because of this poison, his father has expired. 3. In view of these allegations, FIR No. 423/2012 was registered at Police Station, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Section 306, IPC against the petitioners. 4. The petitioners have alleged that petitioner no. 1 had also lodged a case bearing no. 272/2012 on 5.9.2012 at Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 306, 506, 511, 420 and 120-B of IPC against the complainant and others in connection with the dispute of property as well as death of complainant's father. It has been alleged that cross FIR was lodged against the petitioners by the complainant-respondent as a counter blast. 5. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that no offence against them is made out under Section 306, IPC because FIR No. 423/2012 nowhere mentions the role of each of the petitioners and it has been lodged only to implicate them falsely, merely on the basis of the property dispute and this FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to FIR No. 272/2012 lodged by the petitioners accused-persons. 6. It has been alleged by the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 had given his property on rent basis to one Vijay Kumar and Vijay Kumar wanted to purchase the property while petitioner no. 6. It has been alleged by the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 had given his property on rent basis to one Vijay Kumar and Vijay Kumar wanted to purchase the property while petitioner no. 1 did not want to sell it, so deceased along with others came to the house of the petitioner and proposed to purchase his rented property and on refusal by the petitioner, who did not want to sell his property to respondent's father, threatened petitioner no. 1 to implicate him in a false case. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent no. 2, after the death of his father, has lodged the present false and frivolous FIR in order to settle the scores with the petitioners and on this ground, the petitioners wanted to get the aforesaid FIR quashed by this Court. 7. It has also been argued by the petitioners that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners abetted or instigated the deceased (Rajveer Singh) to commit suicide. 8. On these grounds, the petitioners have prayed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR against them. 9. On the other hand, respondents have opposed the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and it has been argued by them that Rajveer Singh was compelled to commit suicide because of abetment caused by the petitioners. It has been alleged by the respondents that all the four petitioners had tortured and harassed Rajveer Singh in view of money transaction due to which he was compelled to take sulfas medicine, who died due to effect of that poison. It has also been alleged by the respondents that a hand-written suicide note has also been taken on record by the police and in this connection, statements of Dr. Vivek son of deceased Rajveer Singh and Indra Pal Singh were also recorded under under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 10. It has also been submitted by the respondents that the disputed plot was taken on lease from RIICO in the name of petitioner Ram Kumar, who stated that after completion of the said lease, the same will be transferred in the name of deceased Rajveer Singh Choudhary. It has been alleged by the respondents that cost of the plot was Rs. It has been alleged by the respondents that cost of the plot was Rs. 5,50,000/- and profit and expenditure was to be divided 50-50 between both of them and in the year 2012 when the period of said lease was completed, then deceased Rajveer Singh Choudhary told accused Ram Kumar for making registry of half of the land in the name of his son but Ram Kumar did not agree and due to this reason property dispute occurred between them and just one day before the tragic incident, a meeting was held in the house of Ram Kumar when accused Ram Kumar told Rajveer Singh Choudhary that "I will put you in a situation that you will be compelled to take sulfas." It has been alleged by the respondent that soon before suicide, a suicide note was written in the hand-writing of Rajveer Singh Choudhary who took sulfas for committing suicide and in the circumstances, the respondents have submitted that Ram Kumar only is responsible for the death of Rajveer Singh Choudhary because Ram Kumar had provoked the deceased to commit suicide. In these circumstances, the respondents have prayed that FIR should not be quashed at least against Ram Kumar. 11. I have heard the arguments of both the parties.A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 on the point of quashing of FIR under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is relevant here. 11. I have heard the arguments of both the parties.A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 on the point of quashing of FIR under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is relevant here. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that on the following grounds( inter alia), the FIR can be quashed:- (1) 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; (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 Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) where the un-controverted 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 FIR 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 Section 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." 12. By order dated 2.11.2012 , the investigation pending in the present case in Police Station, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar was stayed by this Court. By order dated 2.11.2012 , the investigation pending in the present case in Police Station, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar was stayed by this Court. Looking to the arguments and looking to the documents submitted before me, I have also perused the following rulings submitted by both the parties: (1) Vijendra v. The State of Rajasthan, S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No. 263/2012 decided by the Rajasthan High Court on 13.12.2012 . In this case, the accused was charged under Section 306, IPC by the trial court, but the High Court in revision, discharged the accused from the charge of Section 306 IPC. Suicide note in that case was against the accused was not relied upon by the High Court so as to make out a charge under Section 306, IPC against him. (2) S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahaja & anr.-2020 AIR SCW 4938 . In this case also, charge under Section 306, IPC was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (3) Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh- AIR 2010 SC 327 . In this case also ingredients of abetment were discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (4) Prasant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 175/2013 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.1.2013 . In this case also the FIR and charge-sheet filed under Section 376 IPC was quashed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. (5) Ramesh Kumar v. The State of Chhattishgarh- (2001) 9 SCC 618 . In this case, having regard to the dying declaration and suicide note of the lady along with other circumstances of the case, it was held that offence under Section 306, IPC was not made out against the husband. (6) Joseph Salvaraja v. State of Gujarat & ors., 2011 Cr.L.R. (SC) 739) . In this case, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if the charge-sheet has been filed, the court can examine whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused-petitioner were paima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet and documents etc. (7) M. Mohan v. State - AIR 2011 SC 1238 . In this case, it was held that in absence of mens rea to commit offence, conviction under Section 306, IPC cannot be sustained. (7) M. Mohan v. State - AIR 2011 SC 1238 . In this case, it was held that in absence of mens rea to commit offence, conviction under Section 306, IPC cannot be sustained. It was also held that if deceased was undoubtedly hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life, then the appellant cannot be said to be even remotely connected with the offence of Section 306, IPC. 13. On the other hand, the respondents have relied on the following rulings: (1) Kan Singh & ors. v. State of Rajasthan & anr., 2004(2) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 1284) . In this case it was held that when the investigation has reached at the final stage, the FIR should not be quashed because it will be abuse of process of the court and it will cause interference with the statutory rules of the police which is not permissible under Section 482, Cr.P.C. It was also held in this case that the court should not embark upon any enquiry in a case where the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offence to find whether some person was actually indulged in that case or not This is the function purely entrusted to the Investigating Officer of police and the Court will not assume the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer to arrive at a conclusion and to give a finding which normally a police officer is supposed to give in terms of Section 169, Cr.P.C. It was also held that the High Court should interfere with the investigation only if non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice. In this case, the Rajasthan High court has following the following rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- (1) State of Bihar & anr. v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655 , (2) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992(Suppl(1) SCC 335 , (3) Mahaveer Prasad Gupta(shri) & anr. v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi & ors., 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 765 . 14. In the present case, I have perused the investigation papers and all the documents submitted by the parties. v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655 , (2) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992(Suppl(1) SCC 335 , (3) Mahaveer Prasad Gupta(shri) & anr. v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi & ors., 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 765 . 14. In the present case, I have perused the investigation papers and all the documents submitted by the parties. The petitioners have argued that deceased Rajveer Singh Choudhary wanted to purchase the property of Ram Kumar forcibly from him while the son of the deceased Rajveer Singh Choudhary has alleged that payment had already been made by deceased Rajveer Singh Choudhary to Ram kumar and Ram Kumar wanted to swallow the money dishonestly which was paid to him by deceased Rajveer Singh Choudhary. 15. In the fitness of things, I am convinced that said FIR No. 423/2012 against petitioners Smt. Kiran Jangid, Mohit Jangid and Rohit Jangid is nothing but an abuse of process and so investigation against all these three persons is quashed and the FIR No. 423/2012 will be investigated by the Police Station, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar only against accused-petitioner Ram Kumar. 16. Thus, the aforesaid FIR No. 423/2012 is hereby partly quashed by this order as indicated above. It is made clear that regarding role of Ram Kumar, this order should not be misunderstood and the Investigating Officer will not be influenced by this order in any way and he is supposed to make impartial investigation in the matter regarding the culpability of Ram Kumar. 17. The misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., as filed by the accused-petitioners, is partly allowed accordingly.Petition allowed. *******