JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri J.P. Mishra, learned Counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State. None has appeared on behalf of respondent-2, though called twice. Hence I proceed to decide this application after having heard learned Counsel for applicant and learned AGA. 2. This application under section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi-sole applicant with a prayer to quash Charge-sheet No. 27 of 2006 dated 11.4.2006 filed in Case Crime No. 1164 of 2006, under section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba. 3. Facts, in brief, in the present case are that Opposite Party-2 Ram Narayan Prajapati, father of Dhirendra Pratap Singh lodged First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "F.I.R.") at Police Station-Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba stating that his son was a student of Class-XII. After Deepawali vacation, he had come to school from his house and was residing in hostel. On 20.11.2004, Principal, K.C. Pandey from Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mahoba suddenly informed on telephone at around 2:30 A.M. that his son is missing from hostel and Informant was required to reach Mahoba to search him out. Informant was working in a Development Block, Sumerpur, Hameerpur and he was employed in National Pulse Polio Project He could not come immediately. His younger brother Haldhar Prasad reached school at 10:00 A.M. and on enquiry, Principal told him that dead body of Informant's son Dhirendra Pratap Singh was lying at Railway Gate, Kidari. Informant further alleged that whenever his son used to come at his residence, he complained that his Principal K.C. Pandey and House Master Mr. Dubey beat him badly and also treated him with abusive language and used to cause to him mental torture. Therefore, he had doubt that both i.e. K.C. Pandey and House Master, Mr. Dubey are responsible to force his son to commit suicide due to excessive beating and torture. 4. Dubey beat him badly and also treated him with abusive language and used to cause to him mental torture. Therefore, he had doubt that both i.e. K.C. Pandey and House Master, Mr. Dubey are responsible to force his son to commit suicide due to excessive beating and torture. 4. Police made investigation and claimed to have found suicide note which reads as under: ^^udy lqlkbM+ uksV ^^fizafliy** eSa pksj ugha gw¡ vki dks xyrQgeh gqà gS ftUgksaus esjh f'kdk;r dh mUgksaus vius ckjs esa dqN ugha crk;k gksxkA lj esjs Hkh dsyk fcLdqV dHkh&dHkh xk;c gq, gSa ysfdu eSaus dHkh f'kdk;r ugha dh vkSj vkt eSaus dj fn;k rks ,d pksj cu x;kA vkius 50 :i;k dgs Fks 50 D;k cfYd ,d yk[k dgrs rks Hkh dgha u dgha ls ykrk vxj ugha yk ikrk rks ej tkrkA lj vxj esjh ek¡ ugha gS rks D;k eSa ,d vPNk yM+dk ugha cu ldrk oSls vkius fBd dgk lj eSa ,d vPNk yM+dk ugha gw¡ ysfdu vxys tUe esa t:j ,d vPNk yM+dk cuus dh dksf'k'k d:axk eSa cgqr cqjk gw¡ lj eSaus vkidk vkSj vius ikik dk fny nq[kk;k gS gks lds rks ikik dks ;g ckr crkuk ftanxh esa igyh ckj bruk csbTtrh eglwl dj jgk gw¡ 'kk;n blfy, eSa ,slk dj jgk gw¡ vkidk f'k";&/khjsUnzA** 5. After recording statements of Informant, his brother, son and some other students of school, Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as "I.O."), submitted charge-sheet, which is impugned in present application stating that charge-sheet has been submitted without examining that there is no connection between the complaint of deceased so as to attract section 306, IPC. In the case in hand, there is no nexus between so-called suicide as alleged on the part of applicant. There is no proximity and there is no material, therefore, entire prosecution is vitiated in law. Reliance is placed by learned Counsel for applicant on Supreme Court's judgments in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, 2010 (70) ACC 907 (SC) : 2010 (93) AIC 8 , Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (68) ACC 667 (SC) : 2010 (86) AIC 193 , State of Kerala and others v. S. Unnikrishanan Nair and others 2016 (93) ACC 449 (SC) : 2016 (159) AIC 188 and S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, 2010 (71) ACC 623 (SC) : 2010 (95) AIC 96 . 6. Learned Counsel for applicant also stated that in the FIR names of Principal, K.C. Pandey and one Mr. Dubey have been taken while charge-sheet has been submitted against applicant-Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi without there being any material to show that the person named in FIR is applicant himself, particularly when in suicide note there is nothing which may suggest that anything was said by the deceased-student against the applicant. 7. From perusal of alleged suicide note, it appears that there was some complaint made with respect of missing of bananas which was complained by somebody and thereafter something happened in the school, but who made complaint and who scolded, nothing is not very clear from the alleged suicide note. From the students' statements, it appears that teachers used to scold the deceased-student time to time but only for his betterment and not either to punish him or with any malice. Assuming the facts as stated in FIR correct and having gone through evidence collected by I.O., the only scope under section 482 Cr.P.C., at this stage, is whether any offence under section 306, IPC is made out or not. In order to attract section 306, IPC, one has to find out existence of something which may amount to abetment of committing suicide by the deceased. 8. In Madan Mohan Singh (supra), Supreme Court said that in such matters there must be an allegation that the accused has instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy and lastly that the accused had in any way aided in the act or illegal omission to bring out the suicide. Section 306, IPC reads as under : "306. Abetment of suicide.-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 9. The abetment is defined in section 107, IPC which reads as under : "Abetment of a thing A person abets the doing of a thing, who: 1. Instigates any person to do that thing; or 2. The abetment is defined in section 107, IPC which reads as under : "Abetment of a thing A person abets the doing of a thing, who: 1. Instigates any person to do that thing; or 2. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or 3. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanations.-1. A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration: A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 2. Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 10. Allegation that somebody has done something wrong which he should not have done, all explanations given by such person with respect to allegation that he had done something wrong per se, cannot be said to be a material or fact which can be constituted as if abetment to commit crime in my view are within ambit of section 306 IPC read with section 107 IPC. If a person is hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference which happen in our day to day life the charge of abetment to suicide cannot be levelled against another person, who has to perform his duty in ordinary course of business. Job of a Teacher is always supposed to teach his students and tell them what is good for them. Job of a Teacher is always supposed to teach his students and tell them what is good for them. If instructions given by a Teacher or behaviour by a Teacher is treated to be a torture or an abetment to commit suicide, things will be very different and serious enough and may create chaos for the entire community of Teachers as well. In State of Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and another, (1994) 1 SCC 73 , it was held that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence to find out whether the same can be brought within the ambit of abetment to commit suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committed suicide was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belongs and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide. The conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetment to commit offence of suicide should be found guilty. 11. Principle of law laid down in aforesaid judgments also as relied by learned Counsel for applicant are not acceptable as not otherwise binding upon this Court but question as to whether at this stage when charge-sheet has been submitted such defence of applicant can be examined or whether the Court can examine the evidence collected by Investigating Officer or let the Trial Court record finding of fact. 12. In my view, here is some difficulty and this Court cannot go to this extent of enquiry on an application under section 482, Cr.P.C. at this stage. 13. The principles which justify interference under section 482, Cr.P.C. by Court have been laid down in various authorities in which Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1991 (28) ACC 111 (SC), was leading precedent and thereafter matter has also been examined by even Larger Benches. 14. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (supra) issue of jurisdiction of this Court under section 482, Cr.P.C. has been considered and what has been laid down therein in paragraph 102, has been repeatedly followed and reiterated consistently. 14. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (supra) issue of jurisdiction of this Court under section 482, Cr.P.C. has been considered and what has been laid down therein in paragraph 102, has been repeatedly followed and reiterated consistently. In very recent judgment in Google India Private Limited v. Visakha Industries and others, AIR 2020 SC 350 , guidelines laid down in paragraph 102 in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) have been reproduced as under : "102. 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 extraordinary 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) 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 FIR 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 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. (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. (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." (Emphasis supplied) 15. Court has also reproduced note of caution given in paragraph 103 in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) which reads as under : "103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." (Emphasis supplied) 16. What would be the scope of expression "rarest of rare cases" referred to in para 103 in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) has been considered in Jeffrey J. Diermeier and others v. State of West Bengal and others, 2010 (70) ACC 220 (SC) : 2010 (91) AIC 9 , Court has said that words "rarest of rare cases" are used after the words 'sparingly and with circumspection' while describing scope of section 482 CrPC. Those words merely emphasize and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words 'sparingly and with circumspection'. Those words merely emphasize and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words 'sparingly and with circumspection'. They mean that the power under section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The expression "rarest of rare cases" is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under section 302 IPC, but to emphasize that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection. 17. Supreme Court in Jeffrey J. Diermeier (supra) infact referred to an earlier Three Judges' Bench judgment in Som Mittal v. State of Karnataka 2008 (60) ACC 1021 (SC) : 2008 (65) AIC 187 , to explain phrase "rarest of rare cases". In Som Mittal (supra), Court also said that exercise of inherent power under section 482, Cr.P.C. is not a rule but exception. Exception is applied only when it is brought to notice of Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be added if trial is allowed to proceed where accused would be harassed unnecessarily or if trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. Whenever question of fact is raised which requires evidence, Courts always said that at pre-trial stage i.e. at the stage of cognizance taken by Magistrate power under section 482, Cr.P.C. would not be appropriate to be utilized, since, question of fact has to be decided in the light of evidence which are yet to be adduced by parties. 18. In Lakshman v. State of Karnataka and others, 2020 (110) ACC 915 (SC), Court said that it is not permissible for High Court in application under section 482, CrPC to record any finding wherever there are factual disputes. Court also held that even in dispute of civil nature where there is allegation of breach of contract, if there is any element of breach of trust with mens rea, it gives rise to criminal prosecution as well and merely on the ground that there was civil dispute, criminality involved in the matter cannot be ignored. Court also held that even in dispute of civil nature where there is allegation of breach of contract, if there is any element of breach of trust with mens rea, it gives rise to criminal prosecution as well and merely on the ground that there was civil dispute, criminality involved in the matter cannot be ignored. Further whether there is any mens rea on part of accused or not, is a matter required to be considered having regard to facts and circumstances and contents of complaint and evidence etc. therefore, it cannot be said pre judged in a petition under section 482, CrPC. 19. In Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 2019 SC 3913 : 2020 (110) ACC 31 (Sum.), Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction though wide and expansive has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise would justify by tests specifically laid down in section itself. In paragraph 14 of judgment, Court said : "14. For interference under section 482, three conditions are to be fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light should be of a grave, and not of a trivial character; it should be palpable and clear and not doubtful and there should exist no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief." (Emphasis supplied) 20. Court also said that in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482, CrPC it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it were Trial Court. Court has only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against accused. For that limited purpose, Court can evaluate material and documents on record but it cannot appreciate evidence to conclude whether materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting accused. High Court should not exercise jurisdiction under section 482, CrPC embarking upon an enquiry into whether evidence is reliable or not or whether on reasonable apprehension of evidence, allegations are not sustainable, or decide function of Trial Judge. For the above proposition, Court relied on its earlier authority in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and others, 2005 (51) ACC 188 (SC) : 2005 (25) AIC 379 . 21. Power under section 482, CrPC should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. For the above proposition, Court relied on its earlier authority in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and others, 2005 (51) ACC 188 (SC) : 2005 (25) AIC 379 . 21. Power under section 482, CrPC should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. At the same time, if basic ingredients of offences alleged are altogether absent, criminal proceedings can be quashed under section 482, CrPC. Relying on M.A.A. Annamalai v. Stars of Karnataka and others, 2011 (72) ACC 474 (SC), Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1754 and Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Nonjalgi and others, 1976 (13) ACC 225 (SC), Court in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and others (supra) said that where allegations set out in complaint or charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is open to High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC to quash order passed by Magistrate taking cognizance of offence. Inherent power under section 482, CrPC is intended to prevent abuse of process of Court and to clear ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under CrPC. Magistrate also has to take cognizance applying judicial mind only to see whether prima facie case is made out for summoning accused persons or not At this stage, Magistrate is neither required to consider FIR version nor he is required to evaluate value of materials or evidence of complainant to find out at this stage whether evidence would lead to conviction or not. 22. It has also been so observed in Rakhi Mishra v. State of Bihar and others, 2017 (101) ACC 988 (SC) : 2017 (180) AIC 175 and Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta and others, 2015 (112) ACC 897 (SC) : 2015 (154) AIC 239 , and followed recently in Roshni Chopra and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (7) SCALE 152 . Here Court also referred to judgment in Dy. Here Court also referred to judgment in Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal and others, (2003) 4 SCC 139 : 2003 (46) ACC 686 (SC) : 2003 (5) AIC 416 , wherein paragraph 9, Court said that in determining the question whether any-process has to be issued or not, Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding or not and whether there is sufficient ground for conviction; whether the evidence is adequate for supporting conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. 23. However, it is also true that at the stage of issuing process to the accused, Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons. In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Limited and others, 2000 (3) SCC 745 , after referring to a decision in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), Court said : "Legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of complaint without issuing process. There is no such requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passed detailed order while issuing summons. Process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that Magistrate had not passed a speaking order." (Emphasis supplied) 24. Same proposition was reiterated in Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, 2012 (77) ACC 718 (SC). 25. In a Three Judges' Bench in Parbatbhai Aahir and others v. State of Gujarat and others, 2018 (102) ACC 988 (SC) : 2018 (183) AIC 163 , Court has observed that section 482, CrPC is prefaced with an overriding provision. It saves inherent power of High Court, as a superior Court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Paragraph 15 of the judgment Court summarized as under : "(i) section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. In Paragraph 15 of the judgment Court summarized as under : "(i) section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the Court is governed by the provisions of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In the exercise of the power under section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." (Emphasis Supplied) 26. Above observations have been reiterated in Arun Singh and other v. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2020 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5224 of 2017), decided by Supreme Court on 10.2.2020. 27. It is open to the applicant to raise all the pleas when the evidence is adduced before the Court below but at this stage when the evidence is yet to be adduced/placed before Court below, this Court cannot act like a Trial Court to examine the material to find out whether evidence collected by Police satisfies ingredients of abetment to commit suicide or not. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere at this stage. 28. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere at this stage. 28. The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.