JUDGMENT : ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr 'kekZ&;kph vfHk;qDr y{e.k iztkifr us ;g ;kfpdk /kkjk 482 n.M+ izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr izLrqr dj mlds fo:) iqfyl Fkkuk m|ksxuxj] ftyk&dksVk 'kgj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 464@2015 vijk/k vUrXkZr /kkjk 306 Hkk-n-l- ftles fd ckn vuqla/kku ;kph ds fo:) vkjksi i= is'k fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk orZeku esa lk{; vfHk;kstu esa U;k;ky; vij lsa'ku U;k;k/kh'k Øe&2] dksVk esa ls'ku dsl la[;k 20@2015 ¼ljdkj cuke y{e.k iztkifr½ yafcr gS] dh leLRk vkuq"kkfxad dk;Zokgh dsk lekIr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA 2- izdj.k ds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj gS fd fnukad 14 tqykbZ] 2015 dks ifjoknh dqynhi mQZ caVh us Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk m|ksxuxj] ftyk&dksVk ds le{k ,d fjiksVZ bl vk'k; dh is'k dh %& ^^fuosnu gS fd esjs ekek lqjtey th dk yM+dk dfiy fuoklh ckajk o esa lw;Zuxj Mdfu;k LVs'ku ds ikl /kukyky th lqeu ds edku esa fdjk;k ls dejk ysdj nksuks lkFk gh jgrs gqS rFkk caly dksfpax jksM+ u- dh dsUVhu esa dke djrs gS vkt ge nksuksa dsUVhu esa dke djus ugh x;sA dejs gh FksA eS vkt fnukad 14-07-2015 dks lqcg 9-15 cts djhc uk'rk ysus Mdfu;k x;k FkkA dejs ij dfiy gh FkkA vk/kk ?k.Vk ckn dsys ysdj okil vk;kA dejs ds nksuks rjQ ds xsV cUn FksA eSus [kksyus dh dksf'k'k dh rks vUnj ls dqUnh yxh gqbZ FkhA eSusa dwyj okyh f[kM+dh dk iyM+ mBk dj ns[kk rks dfiy ia[ks ds dMs ls yVdk gqvk FkkA eSusa rqjUr edku ekfyd ds yM+ds lq'khy o vU; eksgYys okyksa dks cqyk;kA lcus feydj cMh ef'dy ls /kDds ekjdj njoktk [kksyk rks dfiy nqiVVs dk Qank yxkdj yVdk gqvk FkkA eksgYys okyks us iqfyl okyks dks Qksu fd;k eSus ?kj okyks dks Qksu fd;k fQj eSus dfiy dh tsc pSd dh rks tsc esa Q'kZ feyk] ftles mlds gkFk ls fy[kk gqvk ,d dkWih dk dkxt feyk ftlesa dfiy us y{e.k iztkifr fuoklh izseuxj izFke ds }kjk ijs'kku djus dh ckr fy[kh gS rFkk ekSr dk ftEesnkj Hkh mls gh ekuk gS fd y{e.k iztkifr ge ftl dsUVhu esa dke djokrk gS tks gesa fcuk ckr ijs'kku djrk gSA dfiy ds }kjk fy[kk x;k i= fjiksVZ ds lkF is'k dj jgk gwa] dk;Zokgh dh tkosA^^ mDr fjiksVZ ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 464@2015 vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 306 Hkk-na-la- esa ntZ dj vuqla/kku izkjEHk fd;k x;kA ckn vuqla/kku ;kph vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksi i= is'k fd;k x;k rFkk izdj.k ls'ku dfeV fd;k x;kA tks orZeku esa cgl vkjksi lqudj /kkjk 306 Hkk-na-l- ds vijk/k esa ;kph ds fo:) vkjksi fojfpr dj fn;kA izdj.k orZeku esa lk{; vfHk;kstu esa yafcr gSA 3- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph us fuosnu fd;k gS fd ;kph dks bl izdj.k esa >waBk Qlka;k x;k gSA mlds fo:) e`rd ds lqlkbZMy uksV ds vykok vU; dksbZ lk{; ugha gSA vuql/kku ds nkSjku ,d= lkexzh ij fopkj fd;k tkrk gS rks ;kph ds fo:) dksbZ vijk/k ugha curk gSA vr% mlds fo:) yafcr vkijkf/kd izdj.k dh dk;Zokgh dks lekIr fd;k tk;sA mUgksus vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 659 , State of Kerala v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others, (2015) 9 SCC 639 , Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujrat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;s 5- mDr rdksZ dk fojks/k djrs gq, fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd Jh thrsUnz Jhekyh us fuosnu fd;k gS fd vuql/kku ds ckn izdj.k esa vkjksi i= is'k gks pqdk gS rFkk mlesa izlaKku fy;k tk pqdk gS rFkk ;kph ij vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tk pqds gSA izdj.k orZeku esa lk{; vfHk;kstu dh LVst ij gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus ds ckn izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nks"keqDr fd;s tkus vFkok nks"kfl)h fd;s tkus esa fd;k tkuk pkfg,A bl U;k;ky; dks /kkjk 482 n.M+ izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr varfuZfgr 'kfDr;ks dk iz;ksx dj fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh esa gLr{ksi ugha djuk pkfg,A 6- lquk x;kA 7- gLrxr izdj.k esa ;kph ds fo:) e`rd dks vkRegR;k ds fy, nq"izsfjr djus dk lkf{k;ksa us vkjksi yxk;k gSA e`rd us vius lqlkbZMy uksV esa blh izdkj ds vkjksi yxk;s gSA tgka rd ;kph dh vkSj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkrksa dk iz'Uk gS Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujrat and Another ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd “In order to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306, IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306, IPC, much more material is required. The Courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant/accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant/accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. [ (2005) 2 SCC 659 ], this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused. It was tried to be contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that at this stage, we should not go into the merits of the FIR or the said suicide note. It is trite law now that where there is some material alleged in the FIR, then such FIR and the ensuing proceedings should not be quashed under Section 482 Cr. It is trite law now that where there is some material alleged in the FIR, then such FIR and the ensuing proceedings should not be quashed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It is for this reason that we very closely examined the FIR to see whether it amounts to a proper complaint for the offence under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC.” blh izzdkj State of Kerala v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& “Coming to the case at hand, as we have stated earlier, the suicide note really does not state about any continuous conduct of harassment and, in any case, the facts and circumstances are quite different. In such a situation, we are disposed to think that the High Court is justified in quashing the proceeding, for it is an accepted position in law that where no prima facie case is made out against the accused, then the High Court is obliged in law to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceedings.” blh izzdkj Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& “In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the Learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the First Information Report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the Learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the First Information Report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal.” ftlesa dksbZ fookn ugha gSA 8- gLrxr izdj.k esa lkf{k;ksa us ekSf[kd lk{; esa Hkh e`rd dks ;kph }kjk vkRegR;k ds fy, nq"izsfjr djus dk dFku fd;k gS vkSj e`rd us vius lqlkbZMy uksV esa ;kph }kjk fujUrj ijs'kku djus ds fy, dFku fd;k gSA rFkk izdj.k esa ;kph vfHkq;qDRk dks lqudj fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 306 Hkk-na-l- ds vijk/k esa vkjksi fojfpr fd;k x;k gS vkSj izdj.k vHkh lk{; vfHk;kstu esa yafcr gksuk crk;k x;k gSA tks U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;s x;s gS] os lkjs vuqla/kku dh LVst ds gS rFkk muds rF; gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k ;kph dh dksbZ enn ugha djrs gSA 9- ekuuh; loksZPPk U;k;ky; }kjk State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] ds izdj.k esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr fd;s tkus ds lca/k esa fuEu lkr vk/kkj crk;s gS] tks fuEu izdkj gS%& “105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. 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 uncontroverted 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 F.I.R. 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. 7. 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. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10- gLrxr izdj.k esa pwafd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ gksus ds ckn vkjksi i= is'k fd;k tk pqdk gSA vkjksi i= is'k gksus ds ckn izdj.k esa izlaKku fy;k tk pqdk gS rFkk cgl pktZ lqudj vkjksi fojfpr is'k gksus ds ckn izdj.k esa izlaKku fy;k tk pqdk gS rFkk cgl pktZ lqudj vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tk pqds gSA vkjksi ds vkns'k dks ;kph us dksbZ pqukSrh ugh nh gS vkSj izdj.k vHkh lk{; vfHk;kstu dh LVst ij gSA 11- ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa mijksDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr ds mDr lkrksa vk/kkjksa esa ls izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugh ik;k tkrk gSA 12- rnuqlkj bl ;kfpdk esa dksbZ lkj ugh ik;k tkrk gS vkSj ;g ;kfpdk vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA LFxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh mDr izdkj ls vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA Petition dismissed.