JUDGMENT : VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner is the original accused who has invoked the powers of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to seek quashment of the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to ‘FIR’) lodged against him. 3. The factual matrix leading to the present petition are that, petitioner is a retired Government servant. He retired from the post of Director of Vocational Education And Training, Maharashtra State, Mumbai on 31.12.2015. Offence vide Crime No. I-85/2017 has been registered against the present petitioner on the basis of the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 2 is the wife of one deceased Balasaheb Sase, who was also a Government servant. A written complaint was lodged by respondent No. 2 on 11.4.2016 with Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar alleging that her husband has committed suicide on 11.11.2015 between 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. by hanging himself at their residential house. It is alleged by respondent No. 2 that, the petitioner was the superior officer of her deceased husband and the petitioner has given harassment and humiliating treatment during the course of the employment to the deceased, because of which deceased was compelled to commit suicide. 4. The petitioner contends that, after the deceased had committed suicide on 11.11.2015, the matter was reported to the police and Accidental Death No. 132/2015 was registered under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code and enquiry was conducted. The spot panchanama was executed in the presence of the son of the deceased and the statements of witnesses were recorded. At that point of time, nobody had made a grievance against the petitioner. However, the respondent No. 2 after a lapse of about five months gave a written complaint making the allegations. However, the FIR ultimately came to be registered on 19.3.2017 i.e. after about 16 months of the date of the incident. During the course of the enquiry in the accidental death, statement of the petitioner was also recorded and he had denied all the allegations against him. He had no concern with the training department wherein the deceased was employed. However, the FIR ultimately came to be registered on 19.3.2017 i.e. after about 16 months of the date of the incident. During the course of the enquiry in the accidental death, statement of the petitioner was also recorded and he had denied all the allegations against him. He had no concern with the training department wherein the deceased was employed. Further whatever he has done is in the administrative capacity. On the contrary for the administrative lapses which were committed by the deceased, he has been punished by the Statement Government. 5. The petitioner also submits that, the day to day affairs of the subordinates like deceased Mr. Sase were supervised and controlled by the Regional Joint Director, and therefore the deceased was not directly under the control of the petitioner. He had not called upon the report or explanation from the deceased on his own but it was through the Regional office after the documents were submitted before him. The petitioner had no personal grudge against deceased Mr. Sase, and therefore there was no question of humiliating him or giving any kind of insulting treatment to the deceased. He cannot be held responsible for the unfortunate death of the deceased. He therefore, prayed for quashing the FIR. 6. The petition has been objected by the respondent No. 2 by filing affidavit. She has stated that, the petitioner was Director of Training between 2011 to 2012 and during the said period her husband was subjected to mental torture by the petitioner, being the superior officer. The deceased had filed various complaints with the authorities from time to time against the petitioner. The harassment was in the nature of transfer, calling explanations. In Regular Criminal Case No. 588 of 2011 lodged against one Pramod Kalse under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, her deceased husband had given statement on 7.2.2015 against the present petitioner and other officers. She has filed the copy of the deposition and Judgment in the said case on record. Her husband had approached the petitioner on 1.10.2015 with the request for his signature on the identity card and release of grant of employees who were working on clock hour basis, however the petitioner had refused to grant both the requests. Even prior to the date of the incident, her husband had received telephone from Mumbai at about 4.30 p.m. and thereafter her husband was under mental tension. Even prior to the date of the incident, her husband had received telephone from Mumbai at about 4.30 p.m. and thereafter her husband was under mental tension. She has stated that, due to the continuous harassment at the hands of the petitioner, her husband had committed suicide, and therefore she says that there is no reason to interfere in the proceedings initiated by her. 7. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.K. Kadam appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P.S. Patil, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 State and Mr. V.S. Bedre, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2. Perused the documents those have been produced by both the parties on record. 8. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, the husband of the respondent No. 2 had committed suicide on 11.11.2015, however, the written complaint was given by the respondent No. 2 on 11.4.2016 and ultimately the FIR has been registered on 19.3.2017. There is absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay. The contents of the FIR would show that there was no basis for the allegations made therein. Further whatever has been done in the official capacity by the petitioner was the administrative act. Deceased was directed to face the departmental enquiry and after the due enquiry, he has been punished. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. The series of communications those have been produced on record also would show that, it was not the voluntary act on the part of the petitioner to call upon explanation from deceased or ask him to do a particular act. It was prompted due to his position as a superior and it can be said to be the administrative act on his part. Another fact that is required to be considered is that, the statement of witnesses were recorded at the time of enquiry under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code and nobody had made any kind of grievance against the petitioner. He placed reliance on the decision in Binod S/o Ratan Sarkar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2014 All MR (Cri) 1216, wherein it has been observed: “16. Thus, the offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. He placed reliance on the decision in Binod S/o Ratan Sarkar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2014 All MR (Cri) 1216, wherein it has been observed: “16. Thus, the offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in three clauses of section 107. As such, in case of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.” 9. He also placed reliance on the decision in Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirasao and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2016 All MR (Cri) 4328, wherein it has been observed: “19.........The question would be as to whether the fact of a person being disturbed on account of official act done by a superior would be sufficient to book such a superior officer for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code or not. We find that the issue is squarely answered by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh’s case.” Further note of the said case ratio has been taken and it is observed: “20........for permitting a trial to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to at least prima facie establish that the accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of availability of such material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.” He also relied on the decision in Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628 , relied in the above said case. 10. In the absence of availability of such material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.” He also relied on the decision in Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628 , relied in the above said case. 10. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that, though there appears to be a delay in lodging the FIR, the informant has tried to give reason for the delay. She was collecting the documents which were in the form of official communications, and therefore there was delay. The official communications would point out that intentionally the alleged lapses were highlighted by the petitioner so that the deceased was required to face the departmental enquiry, threats were given for his suspension or dismissal. Even the deceased was making grievances in writing against the petitioner and asking superior of the petitioner to take action against petitioner. However, he could not get any positive response from the superior most authorities. All those actions those were intentionally taken by the petitioner against the deceased. Deceased was under mental pressure and even on the date of the death, deceased had received a phone call, because of the same the said mental pressure got intensified, which prompted him to commit suicide. Due enquiry has been made by the police officers on the written complaint filed by respondent No. 2 and after the arriving at the satisfaction, the crime has been registered. Therefore, though there may not be a direct and instant instigation but the instigation was of such a nature that ultimately deceased was compelled to commit suicide. The ingredients of offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code are attracted and prima facie satisfied, therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed and set aside. 11. As regards legal position as to what is required for attracting an offence punishable under section 306 and 107 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, those have been enumerated in Binod Sarkar’s case (Supra). It is therefore required to be seen as to whether the material that was placed before the police authorities was sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence. It is therefore required to be seen as to whether the material that was placed before the police authorities was sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence. At the outset it can be seen that, deceased Balasaheb Gangadhar Sase had committed suicide on 11.11.2015 at about 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. The death was reported to the police and enquiry under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code has been conducted. It is not even the case of the respondents that, immediately after the suicide when the statement of the witnesses were recorded in the enquiry under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code, respondent No. 2 or the relatives of the deceased had expressed any suspicion against the petitioner. It has been stated in the FIR that deceased was time and again informing her and children about the alleged harassment by petitioner. If this fact is to be even prima facie taken as true then they could have raised suspicion over the suicide committed by deceased. It is hard to believe that informant and children would not have thought about the reason for the suicide of Mr. Sase. The respondent No. 2 directly thereafter on 11.4.2016 lodged the written complaint which was then put under enquiry. The respondent No. 1 submits that, after the enquiry was conducted in fact the FIR has been lodged by showing one PSI Kalpana Dhondiram Shirdawade attached to Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, tobe the informant on behalf of the State, and the said FIR has been registered on 19.3.2017. It appears that, there is an inordinate delay for conducting even the enquiry under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code or even on the written complaint that was lodged by respondent No. 2. When no proper explanation is coming forward for this delay then the benefit of the same is required tobe given to the petitioner. 12. If we consider the contents of the written complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2, it is to be noted that, no suicide note has been left by the deceased. When no such note has been left then except the oral contents that deceased was disclosing the alleged harassment to her as well as their children, there cannot be said to be anything on record. When no such note has been left then except the oral contents that deceased was disclosing the alleged harassment to her as well as their children, there cannot be said to be anything on record. Even if we consider the said contents of her written complaint, it can be said that, the petitioner was giving written as well as oral threats to the deceased. She appears to be referring to the official communications between the petitioner and the deceased. Those communications have been produced on record. 13. Perusal of those communications would show that the warning was given to the deceased for not making direct communications to the Hon’ble Minister and to observe the official protocol. If such warning is given, that cannot be said to a harassment. When said fact is communicated by the petitioner to the deceased, the petitioner was discharging his official duty. It appears that, in spite of the said warning, deceased had not stopped making such kind of communication directly to the State Government, instead of going through proper channel. Under such circumstance and for other circumstance referred in the letters, departmental enquiry was initiated against the deceased. It also appears that, he was punished for the same. Petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same because deceased had every kind of opportunity to defend himself, and if aggrieved by the punishment the legal option was also open for him. 14. Thereafter there appears an enquiry in respect of mass copy committed at the time of exams those were held on 3.2.2010 at Aurangabad. The enquiry report shows that, a committee was formulated to have a probe in respect of those allegations about mass copy and the committee had taken decision to hold deceased as one of the guilty person for administrative negligence. It appears that, the said report was under the signature of Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary of Government of Maharashtra. Thereafter, there was again a departmental enquiry which was faced by the deceased. This act also cannot be made attributable to the petitioner because it has not been shown that he was in any way concerned with the said enquiry and the report. 15. The respondent No. 2 has made allegations that, her husband was transferred from the post of Assistant Director, Nashik to Assistant Director, Mumbai, but he had not received salary for about 12 months. 15. The respondent No. 2 has made allegations that, her husband was transferred from the post of Assistant Director, Nashik to Assistant Director, Mumbai, but he had not received salary for about 12 months. How the petitioner can be said to be responsible for the same, has not been explained by her. 16. She has tried to make a connection of every adverse incident faced by her deceased husband in his official capacity to the petitioner. Even in the FIR that has been lodged by PSI after the enquiry, she has not tried to bring on record the said connection. Further it has not been brought on record that the petitioner was the immediate superior of the deceased. Whenever charge was held by the petitioner, if he has done something or even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that being the ultimate head of the department any official act has been done by the petitioner, how he can be said to have instigated or abetted the commission of the suicide by the deceased. 17. The catena of Judgments, for example, the above referred authorities would make it clear that, the prosecution even at prima facie stage should show the intention of the accused to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of his acts. The respondents have failed to produce on record the material to show that prima facie the offence is attracted against the petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of availability of such material, the petitioner cannot be compelled to face any action for the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. For the afore-said reasons, this is a fit case where the FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, following order. ORDER (1) The petition is hereby allowed. (2) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause-B. Petition allowed.