ORDER : 1. By way of the present application, applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR No. 11206043201883 of 2020 lodged by the respondent no.2 before the Mehsana Taluka Police Station, Mehsana and stay the further proceedings thereof. 2. Brief facts of the present case are as under: 3. That, SRG Housing Finance Limited is mainly running the business to provide financial assistance i.e. home loan to the needy persons. The company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at 321, S.M. Lodha Complex, Near Shastri Circle, Udaipur, Rajasthan and the applicant is serving as an Executive in SRG Housing Finance Limited since July 2020. That, Mr. Jikesh Kanubhai Modi wanted financial assistance and thus he approached the company. That, Mrs. Bijalben Jikeshbhai Modi, wife of Jikesh Modi and Mrs. Shardaben Modi, mother of Jikesh Modi and Mr. Harshad N. Oza were stood as co-borrower/guarantor. As per the requisite condition, the loan application form had been submitted by Mr. Jikesh Kanubhai Modi, Mrs. Bijalben Jikeshbhai Modi and Mrs. Shardaben Kanubhai Modi and Mr. Harshad N. Oza on 15.11.2017 and after receiving all the requisite documents, the company decided to disburse the loan to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the principal borrower in pursuance of the surety and trust given by Jikesh Modi and others and in this connection, one loan agreement was executed between them on 15.11.2017. That, Mrs. Shardaben Kanubhai Modi has issued the security over the immovable property in favour of the company by registered deed of mortgage before the Sub Registrar, Mehsana vide Registration No.11090 on 05.12.2017 for securing the said loan. That, Mr Jikesh Kanubhai Modi failed to make payment of the regular installments or EMI on the due date as per the terms and Pag conditions of the loan agreement and in furtherance of the non payment of the regular installments from May 2019, last reminder was sent and time for 3 months was given. That, time and again, the payment reminders were given, however borrower as well as guarantor were neither taken care to pay even single installment nor shown readiness to pay the amount of loan and hence, the company was compelled to declare the loan amount as Non Performing Asset on 21.09.2019 as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. That, even thereafter also, time of more 3 months was granted to borrower to pay either the some of the installments or loan amount but they did not taken care to pay and therefore, for the first time, the company to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of the Secuterization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (SURFAESI ACT). The demand notice under Section 13(2) was issued to the borrower as well as guarantor on 17.12.2019 though they neither replied nor filed any objection or not make any representation of the notice. That, all such proceedings were initiated by the company even much prior from the date of joining duty by the applicant in July 2020. That, on 24.09.2020, impugned complaint was lodged by the brother of Jikesh Kanubhai Modi against the present applicant alleging that his brother Jikesh has committed suicide due to such loan issue. Thus, present applicant approached this court to quash such complaint. 4. Heard learned advocate for the applicant. 5. It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that present applicant does not have any personal knowledge pertaining to alleged offence. That, no specific role attributed by the present applicant by which remotely can establish the nexus from the role of the applicant in the alleged incident. That, there was not a single occasion where the applicant had meeting with the deceased at any point of time or there was no any discussion held between the deceased and the applicant as the mobile number alleged in the complaint was not having with the applicant at any point of time. That, applicant has not discussed anything in pursuance of the NPA neither with the deceased nor with the guarantors as the company has already initiated the proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI ACT 2002 much prior in December 2019 and therefore, the allegations made in the complaint are absolutely baseless and fabricated. That, applicant was discharging his duty allotted to him by the company as the applicant is serving as an Executive only from July 2020 and the deceased was defaulter in regular payment of installments since May 2019 and the company has already declared the loan account as NPA on 21.09.2019 and thereafter, the proceedings under Section 13(2) was also initiated on 17.12.2019 against the deceased and guarantors. That, neither the defaulter nor the guarantors had taken care to make the payment of unpaid installments of loan amount to the company for which they themselves are responsible meaning thereby, the instigation under Section 107 of IPC is wholly improbable. That, taking the allegations at its face value, it cannot be said that any positive or proximate act is attributed to the present applicant. That, basic and vital ingredients to enable prosecution to proceed with the trial for an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC are conspicuously missing and the mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. That, allegations made in the complaint is with a view to harass the applicant which are nothing but the false, assertions, fabricated, vague and scanty. That, no prudent person can believe the same and the same are inherently, improbable and complaint is filed for personal vengeance and revenge. Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the below mentioned judgments: 1. Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case of Gurucharan Singh vs. The State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2011 2. Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) 335; 3. Judgment passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Case of State of Maharashtra, Through its Police Station Officer, Wadi Police Station, Nagpur and ANR; Dinesh S/O Bhaurao Patil reported in 2018 Law Suit (Bom) 1075 ; 4. Judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Piyush Kantilal Raval vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Misc. Application No.21707 of 2018 with Criminal Misc. Application No.21709 of 2018; 6. At the end, learned advocate for the applicant has requested to admit present application for quashing the impugned complaint 7. However this matter was placed before this Court for admission, looking to the contents of the complaint and nature of offence committed by the applicant and status of investigation, this Court has deemed it fit to dispose of this petition at the admission stage itself. Even this Court deems it not fit to issue rule or notice in the present application to other side. 8. Even this Court deems it not fit to issue rule or notice in the present application to other side. 8. Considering the contents of the FIR as well as averments made in the application and arguments advanced by learned advocate for the applicant, it appears that on 24th September 2020, Shri Gaurangbhai Kanubhai Modi lodged a complaint against the present applicant, who is the sole accused in the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code before the Mehsana Taluka Police Station. The contents of the complaint says that his younger brother Jikeshbhai was running the business in the name of Chehar Krupa Kirana Store at village Motidau and he had availed a loan of approximately Rs. 7 lacs before four years of the incident from the SRG Company of Mehsana and he was paying installment of the said loan to the tune of Rs. 20000/ per month. But on account of poor economic condition and fluctuation in the market, since last eight months, he was facing great economical loss and hence, he could not pay the installments. The present applicant, from his mobile number 7046714119 frequently called brother/deceased of the complainant on his mobile number 9727521726 and 9898521726 and pressurized him to pay installments and thereby frequently strict demand of the installments was made by the present applicant from the brother/deceased of the complainant. It is further alleged in the complaint that before four days of the incident, at noon, when his mother and wife of his brother/deceased were present at their residence, present applicant visited the residence of the deceased and informed to seal the residence as well as shop of his brother/deceased. As economic condition of his brother/deceased was not satisfactory to pay the installments and the present applicant was pressurizing him strictly as he was serving in SRG Company and on account of strict demand of installments made by the present applicant, his brother was under great tension as he could not pay the installments of loan in time. That present applicant was giving mental torture by making call frequently to his brother and therefore, he committed suicide and thereby impugned complaint was lodged on 24.09.2020. It appears that within a period of one week, present applicant has preferred this application on 30.09.2020, as the investigation is at initial stage. That present applicant was giving mental torture by making call frequently to his brother and therefore, he committed suicide and thereby impugned complaint was lodged on 24.09.2020. It appears that within a period of one week, present applicant has preferred this application on 30.09.2020, as the investigation is at initial stage. Serious allegations under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code are made in the complaint by the complainant. For the sake of brevity, this court would like to refer Section 306 of Indian Penal Code as under: “Section 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. To attract Section 306 of Indian Pena Code, abetment of the accused in commission of crime by the person would be material. Offences under Section 307 of I.P.C. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. At this stage, the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 of IPC is committed or not. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society can not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, at this stage. 10. The judgments relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant would not applicable at this juncture because in the present case, complaint was lodged on 24.09.2020 and present application was preferred by the applicant within a week ie. on 30.09.2020 without permitting the investigating agency to find out the truth or come to a conclusion in respect of the allegations made in the complaint against the present applicant. 11. on 30.09.2020 without permitting the investigating agency to find out the truth or come to a conclusion in respect of the allegations made in the complaint against the present applicant. 11. This Court must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. 12. At this stage, this Court is of the considered view that such a power is not exercised in the peculiar facts of the case as the applicant is alleged to have committed the offence, which is not private in nature but have a serious impact on society. At present, investigation is under progress and therefore, no conclusion can be arrived at by the Court that applicant is not involved in the offence or he has not committed any offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly such powers is not to be exercised for the offence under the Act wherein the applicant is involved. Hence, at this juncture, present application requires to be dismissed. 13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the present application is ordered to be dismissed at this stage. 14. Accordingly, present application stands dismissed.