JUDGMENT : R.D. Kothari, J. In this group of three petitions, petitioners pray for quashing of FIR lodged at Navrangpura police station as C.R.No.I-494 of 2009 for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.10720 of 2009 is filed by Principal of H.K.Arts College, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.10721 of 2009 is filed by Senior Clerk of the said college and the third petition is filed by the trustees of Gujarat Vidhyasabha Trust. The said trust manages H.K. Arts College. There is also another trust namely Brahmchari Wadi Trust. The said trust runs BBA College. The deceased herein was working as a Senior Clerk since last about 20 years in BBA college. 3. The incident is said to have occurred on 5.9.2009. The deceased has said to have committed suicide by falling across the goods train in the morning on the said date. The complainant is uncle of the deceased - not real uncle but distant in relation. It is the say of the complainant that he had received a miss-call from the wife of the deceased. In response to the said miss-call, the complainant had telephonic talk with the wife of the deceased. She said to the complainant that deceased had left the house in the morning to drop their child at school but since then the deceased has not returned back to home. So complainant rushed to her house where friends and co-workers of the deceased were present. One of the friends namely Ashok said that he had received message on his mobile from the deceased to collect diary and cassette from the cupboard. Accordingly, diary was found from the cupboard. Diary's writing is in first person. In the said diary, suicide note was found. Writing of 4.9.2009 reads thus: that trustees of Gujarat Vidhyasabha Trust and Brahmchari Wadi Trust are bad persons. They are highly corrupt. That they have damaged the institution like anything. It is my request to take appropriate steps against them. Sweet remembrances to my kids and my family members. The present moment is very bad moment. I am taking this step because of the trustees of my college. It is the say of the complainant that on account of harassment caused by the petitioners to the deceased, the deceased has committed suicide. 4. Sweet remembrances to my kids and my family members. The present moment is very bad moment. I am taking this step because of the trustees of my college. It is the say of the complainant that on account of harassment caused by the petitioners to the deceased, the deceased has committed suicide. 4. Heard learned senior advocate Shri Raju for the petitioners, learned APP Shri Raval for the State and learned advocate Shri Shah for the complainant. 5. Learned Senior advocate Shri Raju has drawn my attention to the relevant facts of the case and has also drawn attention to relevant case laws on the point. It was submitted that no offence, even prima facie, is made out. Hence, interference is called for. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposed the interference at this stage. It was submitted that it is not the case that there is no material against the present petitioners. Besides the suicide note, the diary written by the deceased would go to show that there is a case that requires to be investigated. Learned advocate for the complainant supporting the submission of learned APP and relying on the case laws, which I may make reference hereinafter, has submitted that interference at this stage is impermissible. 6. Law on the point is very well settled. Reference to the relevant case law may be made. (I) In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2010)8 SCC 628 , the deceased was a driver who was working in Microwave Project Department. The wife of the deceased had filed the complaint against the appellant who was head of the said department and employer. Therein also, police had found suicide note. The suicide note and FIR did not find favour with the Court (paragraph 14). Allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to quash the FIR. (II) In M. Mohan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in (2011)3 SCC 626 , wife had committed suicide. Her father has filed a complaint against his son-in-law and against son-in-law's elder brother's wife. Therein it was held that abetment involves mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. It was held that there should be clear mens rea to commit offence under Section 306. Her father has filed a complaint against his son-in-law and against son-in-law's elder brother's wife. Therein it was held that abetment involves mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. It was held that there should be clear mens rea to commit offence under Section 306. Rejection of the petition by the High Court for quashing the charges under Section 306 was found erroneous by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal. (III) Attention was also drawn to Netai Dutta v. State of W.B., reported in 2005(2) SCC 659 . Therein also, suicide was committed by employee and he had said to have left a suicide note. It was also found that deceased was "very much dissatisfied with the working conditions." Allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal case initiated. For the same reason, on the same ground, criminal case was quashed in Pawan Kumar Bhalotia v. State of W.B., reported in 2005(2) SCC 661 . Then, S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, reported in 2010(12) SCC 190 , Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., reported in 2002(5) SCC 371 , Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree and another, reported in 2009(1) SCC 554 , Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Another v. Monica, reported in 2009(10) SCC 604 and Kailashi Bai v. Aarti Arya and another, reported in 2009(13) SCC 548 are all on the same line. 7. This Court has consistently taken a view in favour of exercising power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code in cases like the present one. (I) In S.G. Munia & Ors., v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2002(3) GLH 417 , the deceased was a Mess Manager and writer head in police headquarter. The accused were superior officers. It was the case of prosecution that petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 were indulging in serious irregularities and mismanagement. It was the say of the complainant that there was harassment by the accused to the deceased that had led to mental depression to the deceased and in the end, the deceased has committed suicide. In that case, there was not just suicide note but dying declaration was recorded. However, considering the earlier case law on the point, the Court had quashed the inquiry case and M. case. In that case, there was not just suicide note but dying declaration was recorded. However, considering the earlier case law on the point, the Court had quashed the inquiry case and M. case. (II) In Kanubhai Tapubhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2005(4) GLR 3169 , the deceased was a conductor in ST bus. The accused were officers of GSRTC. Referring and relying on Section 107 of Indian Penal Code, it was held that there is no allegation of abetment in the conduct of the petitioner. The High Court was pleased to quash and set aside the complaint on the basis of which the prosecution was initiated. (III) Lastly reference may also be made to A.K. Chaudhary & v. (The) State of Gujarat & , reported in 2005(3) GLH 444 . Therein the incident was quite serious. The deceased was working in LIC. The deceased along with his wife and two daughters had committed suicide by consuming poison. The accused were officers of LIC. In that case also, police had found suicide note. The allegation was false institution of departmental inquiry and false order of suspension etc. It was held that abetment of committing suicide can be proved only if there is a direct incitement, leaving no option to the deceased but to commit suicide. The Court was pleased to quash the FIR in that case. 8. In the present case, the say of the prosecution is that the deceased has committed suicide because trustees and others are highly corrupt. In this regard, reference and reliance is placed on diary which is said to have been written by the deceased. In support of their case, complainant has annexed relevant note and entries from the diary as Annexure 'A' with his affidavit-in-reply. It is in Gujarati. Its translation reads thus: DIARY - 2001 Page No. (Date) Detail 1st to 8th January Theft of Rs.22,550/- took place in the college. The detail to the effect that I went to lodge a complaint thereof in the police station, but the complaint had not been registered. 16th to 18th January Detail of bogus bills of stationary. Discussion with Shrenikbhai with regard to the land of 5.50 crores. 4th April Detail as to misappropriation regarding Hostel Fees. 6th April Detail as to Virendra made demand to get bogus cheque of Rs.4500/- written. 16th to 18th January Detail of bogus bills of stationary. Discussion with Shrenikbhai with regard to the land of 5.50 crores. 4th April Detail as to misappropriation regarding Hostel Fees. 6th April Detail as to Virendra made demand to get bogus cheque of Rs.4500/- written. 7th April Detail as to bribe to the Government employees in an entry of 20.07.2005. 9th April Detail as to the vehicle of the Trust is used for personal use. 16th April Discussion as to the account is not maintained properly in an entry of 13.09.05 and wrong appointment is made. 22nd April An entry of 29.09.2005 - Details of the false resolution for salary increment - Detail in respect of doing an audit at home. 26th April Detail as to the theft of Jahanviben's purse in an entry of 10.10.05. 4th May 15-10-05 - Detail as to misappropriation of Rs.60,000/- committed by officer Patel by submitting false voucher. 5th May Detail as to A.N.Patel and Virendra Thakor have taken huge amount as a bribe from Jagdishbhai to vacate land. 8th May 30-09-05 - Detail in respect of selling out blank supplementary and iron along with written supplementary in scrap. 16th June Detail as to corruption made by the officer Vaishnav in the amount collected for the visit of B.B.A. Students. 1st July Detail as to corruption made by Virendrabhai in respect of making I Card of the students. 15th July Detail as to corruption made in the recruitment of Professor. 31st July Details as to the officer Vaishnav does not have trust on Virendra. 1st August Detail in respect of corruption of Rs.1 to 2 lacs made by Subhash Brahmbhatt in recruitment of Khandvala Saheb. 14th to 24th November Many other things in addition to these.............. Reference to "detail" in translated version is misleading. This may be on account of translating a word from vernacular to English. In the diary and entries, none of the entries refers any "details". 9. The case of prosecution has no substance. From the above material, it is not possible to link the present petitioners with offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. This may be on account of translating a word from vernacular to English. In the diary and entries, none of the entries refers any "details". 9. The case of prosecution has no substance. From the above material, it is not possible to link the present petitioners with offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. It is for this reason the decisions relied on by learned advocate for the complainant i.e. (I) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Kori, reported in (2012)10 SCC 155 and (ii) Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Another v. Monica and others, reported in (2014)3 SCC 383 do not apply to the present case. The later case was under Section 498-A, 406 of I.P.C. In order to consider the prayer for quashing of FIR, it was held that principal test to be applied is that the facts stated against the accused have to be accepted on the face of it. Therein jurisdiction of Supreme Court was sought to be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution. This prayer was rejected as the petitioner has a remedy available under Criminal Procedure Code. In former case i.e. Surendra Kori's case, the case of prosecution was for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 471 of Indian Penal Code. Reliance was placed on a holding that High Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482, does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This power has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. Attention was also drawn to the holding that the High Court should normally refrain in such proceeding where the facts are incomplete and hazy. That factual and legal issues involved in the case are incapable of being seen in their true perspective without sufficient material being placed on record. These decisions, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, do not help the complainant. 10. It may be stated that petitioners in their affidavit in rejoinder have stated thus: "...... I say that the accounts of the trusts have been maintained in accordance with law and the same is also audited by the Chartered Accountants after the approval of the Annual General Meeting of the trustees the same is submitted to the Charity Commissioner. 10. It may be stated that petitioners in their affidavit in rejoinder have stated thus: "...... I say that the accounts of the trusts have been maintained in accordance with law and the same is also audited by the Chartered Accountants after the approval of the Annual General Meeting of the trustees the same is submitted to the Charity Commissioner. I say that there are no adverse remarks and/or query raised by the Chartered Accountant, who has audited the accounts of the trusts or by the Charity Commissioner. I say that the accounts of the educational institutions are also independently audited not only by Chartered Accountants appointed by the concerned educational institutes but also by the University to which the colleges are affiliated, by the University Grant Commission, as also by the Education Department of the Government of Gujarat, as the case may be......." This assertion is not controverted by the complainant/prosecution. As to the possible objection that defence's material can be referred and relied on or not, (See 2009 (11) SCC 351 (paragraph 25). 11. There are too many links missing to connect the present petitioners with the commission of suicide by the deceased. The case of prosecution and nature of allegation vis-a-vis offence alleged shows that gap and void are not likely to be filled up by the investigation. Assuming for the moment that institutions were not properly functioning and petitioners were indulging in malpractice as alleged, it is difficult to accept the same as the cause or ground for commission of suicide by the deceased. Alleged malpractice and fact of committing suicide are distinct and different facts. These facts are presented as if they are related to each other, while they are clearly mismatch. Assuming for the sake of arguments that suicide note is not unreliable, the note is to be considered and appreciated according to the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the suicide note is not a dying declaration. The force of precedents and weightage of authorities on the point reduces the further discussion redundant. In Madan Mohan Singh's case (supra), in the circumstances of the case, say of the petitioner that superior officer intended commission of suicide by the employee was held "absurd". The fact and circumstances of the present case are not better or much different. 12. In view of the above, present petitions succeed. In Madan Mohan Singh's case (supra), in the circumstances of the case, say of the petitioner that superior officer intended commission of suicide by the employee was held "absurd". The fact and circumstances of the present case are not better or much different. 12. In view of the above, present petitions succeed. The FIR filed at Navrangpura Police Station as C.R.No.I-494 of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. 13. At this stage, learned advocate for the complainant prays for stay of operation of this order for a period of eight weeks. In view of the modification of stay, the police authority has substantially carried out the investigation and on 5.5.2010, this Court has passed an order on account of which further proceeding of the impugned FIR was stayed. The said order is operative till today. In view of the above and in view of allowing the present petitions, it is not possible to accept the prayer of learned advocate for the complainant to stay the operation of this order. Petition allowed.