JUDGMENT : 1. The applicant is shown as accused No.1 in the First Information Report registered on 26.06.2020 bearing No.11213021200558 of 2020 with Jasdan Police Station, District Rajkot Rural under Sections 306, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant herein has prayed for quashing of the impugned First Information Report qua him. 2. The applicant states that he has the authority over Chimanlal Premchand Shah Petrol Pump stationed at Village Jasdan. The prosecution states that the deceased was working as Mehtaji at the said Petrol Pump near old bus stand during day hours and in the night shift was working at Surya Petrol Pump. The applicant states that he has been wrongly implicated in the complaint and no offence as alleged has been made out to invoke the provisions of Sections 306, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the applicant submitted that the deceased was working as a Managercum- Mehtaji at Chimanlal Premchand Shah Petrol Pump and the deceased was having custody of the key of the cupboard and was in possession of the cash amount of the Petrol Pump. When it was found that the deceased had gone away with the key of the cupboard, it is submitted by learned Advocate for the applicant, that the applicant alongwith others had gone to the house of the deceased where they met the father of the deceased, who is the complainant in this case, to enquire about the key of the cupboard. As per the allegations, the persons who visited the house of the complainant searched the house for the key but since they could not find the key nor the deceased, they asked the complainant (father of the deceased) to bring back his son alongwith the key, learned Advocate Mr. Barot submitted that such act was only with an intention that the regular management of the Petrol Pump does not get disrupted. It is further submitted that thereafter, the applicant heard that the son of the complainant had committed suicide by hanging himself from the branches of a neem tree near Jasdan Railway Station. It is also submitted that the narration of facts do not disclose any direct or indirect contact of the applicant with the deceased to have instigated or abetted the commission of the suicide. Learned Advocate Mr. It is also submitted that the narration of facts do not disclose any direct or indirect contact of the applicant with the deceased to have instigated or abetted the commission of the suicide. Learned Advocate Mr. Barot submitted that demanding the key of the cupboard for the administration of the petrol pump would not amount to instigation or incitement to push the case under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2019 SC 4570 , Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2017 (7) SCC 780 and M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi reported in 2019 JX (SC) 1392 to submit that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person in doing something and submitted that in cases of alleged abetment to suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect abetment to suicide. It is submitted that if the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold accused guilty of abetment to suicide. Learned Advocate Mr. Barot referring to the facts of the case submitted that if at all the facts of the case is believed to be true, then also it cannot be said that the present applicant during the course of the day, had ever met the deceased nor was anything found to hint that the applicant had instigated the commission of suicide of the deceased, who had run away with the key of the cupboard. It was during the course of the enquiry and when the applicant and others had visited the house of the complainant, they came to know that the key of the cupboard was not available at home nor the deceased was found there. It is submitted that there was no direct communication of the applicant with the deceased on the alleged day of the incident. It is also submitted that demanding key of the cupboard or enquiring about the cash money lying in the cupboard would not be an offence to consider the said to fall under the definition of ‘abetment’ as provided under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that demanding key of the cupboard or enquiring about the cash money lying in the cupboard would not be an offence to consider the said to fall under the definition of ‘abetment’ as provided under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and to the conduct of the applicant as alleged in the First Information Report, there was no abetment on part of the applicant for commission of suicide. 5. Countering the above, learned Advocate Mr. H.J. Karathiya for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Court while deciding the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the Code’) should not enter into the disputed facts and should not sit as trial Court for appreciating and assessing the facts alleged. He submitted that the truth and fairness of the allegations has to be examined by the trial Court during the process of trial where the evidences that are required to be adduced by the witnesses would disclose the facts and it is ultimately on the evidence recorded Court trying the case could come to a decision as to whether there was any instigation or incitement from side of the applicant or the co-accused, confirming the case as offence of abetment to the commission of suicide. Referring to the judgment in the case of Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab reported in 2007 (7) SCC 378 , learned Advocate Mr. Kathariya submitted that the conclusion of this Court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Code should not be on the basis of the statement of record under Section 161 of the Code, as those statements are held inadmissible evidence and thus cannot be considered while adjudicating the petition under the inherent powers of this Court. 6. To substantiate his arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Kathariya has relied on some other decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 , Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 , Manoj Kumar Sharma and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another reported in (2016) 9 SCC 1 and Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2021 (11) Scale. 7. 7. The facts as stated in the First Information Report suggest that the deceased - Pravin, who is the son of the complainant, was working as Manager at Chimanlal Premchand Shah Petrol Pump and since he was the Manager of the petrol pump, the key of the cupboard of the petrol pump was stated to be in his custody. The applicant alongwith others had enquired about the same and on 25.06.2020 had visited the house of the complainant to enquire about his son (the deceased) and during that process, it is alleged that the household things of the complainant were scattered and the accused were searching for the money and when they could not find it, all the four accused threatened the complainant to search for the deceased and bring him back from where he was, before 11.00 on the next day and had also demanded and had insisted that they wanted Rs.1,50,000/- or otherwise, threatened to remove the roof of his house and straighten his son – Pravin meaning thereby they would face dire consequences. It is stated that the complainant and his another son – Sanjay searched for the deceased; his mobile phone was stated to be switched off during the search made for the whole night, and the next day on 26.06.2020, in the morning at about 7.30 am, the complainant received a call from Surya Petrol Pump at Jasdan, informing that his son – Pravin was found hanging from the branches of a neem tree near Jasdan Railway Station. The complainant states that the accused are responsible for the death of his son as his son might have received information of the threat administered by the accused. 8. This Court would like refer to Section 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus :- “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.” Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus :- “Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing of a thing, who - First. – Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. - A person abets the doing of a thing, who - First. – Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. - 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 Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 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. Explanation 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 9. In Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 CRI. L.J. 2110, the Apex Court while examining the ingredients under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code referring to the word ‘suicide’ explains it in the following terms :- “7. The word suicide in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. ‘Sui’ means ‘self’ and ‘cide’ means ‘killing’, thus, implying an act of self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.” 10. As per the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edition, Page 1433, the word ‘suicide’ is meant to be ‘the action of killing oneself intentionally, a course of action which is disastrously damaging to one’s own interests.’ Thus, the finding of abetment to suicide must be on evidence of intention, it is an intentional act of the party knowing the consequences of the act. Legal ingredients thereby considering the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 regarding abetment to suicide has to be examined. In other words, there should be a necessary evidence abetting by which it can be said that the accused had instigated the deceased in such a manner or created such circumstances which had led the deceased to commit suicide. Legal ingredients thereby considering the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 regarding abetment to suicide has to be examined. In other words, there should be a necessary evidence abetting by which it can be said that the accused had instigated the deceased in such a manner or created such circumstances which had led the deceased to commit suicide. 11. In Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra), the Apex Court while referring to the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (11) SCALE 24 , observed in Paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 as under :- “19. This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) SCALE 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 21. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 12. In Ude Singh v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2019 SC 4570 , referring to the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2001 9 SCC 618 , it has been observed in Paragraph 14.2, reproducing the observations of the said case as under :- "34. The word ‘‘abetment’’ has not been explained in Section 306 IPC. The word ‘‘abetment’’ has not been explained in Section 306 IPC. In this context, the definition of abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC is pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those who abet the commission of suicide of other. Whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of another or not is to be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to be found out by continuous conduct of the accused, involving his mental element. xxx xxx xxx 36. The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or maybe by (implied) conduct. 37. The word "urge forwards" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something, to make a person to move more quickly in the particular direction, specially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person instigating another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with the intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts until the deceased reacted. A casual remark or something said in routine or usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood as "abetment". 13. Abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person in doing something. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 of the Code. These are essential to commit abetment of the crime. The word ‘instigate’ would mean to bring about to initiate (an action or event), especially something bad. The offence of abetment by instigation depends on the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act done by the person who has been abetting. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. 14. The offence of abetment by instigation depends on the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act done by the person who has been abetting. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. 14. Here the facts suggest that the applicant and other co-accused had visited the house of the complainant to search for the key of the cupboard and the amount which was alleged to have been in custody of the deceased. While searching the house, they could not find the money nor the deceased was found. The accused had asked the complainant to bring back his son and the money or else to face consequences. The complainant assumed that his son may have committed suicide as he may have received information of such an act of the accused. This act alleged does not form any part of the instigation to have provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Demanding key of the cupboard and demand of the money which were in the lawful possession of the petrol pump under the custody of the deceased would not be an Act to be considered as instigation or would amount to an act to provoke the deceased to commit suicide. The act alleged has to be kept in mind while viewing similar such circumstances, where under such circumstances, another person similarly situated could have committed suicide. 15. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the following decisions :- a) State of Kerala and Others v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others reported in 2015 (9) SCC 639 wherein the Court had observed as under :- “[14] In Netai Dutta (supra), a two-Judge Bench, while dealing with the concept of abetment under Section 107 I.P.C. and, especially, in the context of suicide note, had to say this: “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 wilful 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. 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. [15] In M. Mohan (supra), while dealing with the abatement, the Court has observed thus: “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” 18. 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. [See V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and Others 2010 10 SCC 361 . (b) Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2020 (4) Crimes (SC) 428 wherein the Court referring to the decision in the case of Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal reported in 2010 1 SCC 707 had observed as under :- “The Court noted that before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, they “must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide”. Instigation, as this Court held in Kishori Lal (supra), “literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. Instigation, as this Court held in Kishori Lal (supra), “literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. In S S Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan 2010 12 SCC 190 , a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Dalveer Bhandari, observed : 25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. Dealing with the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the meaning of abetment within the meaning of Section 107,the Court observed : “12. 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 about the suicide of the person concerned 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. The Court noted that the suicide note expressed a state of anguish of the deceased and cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. Reversing the judgement of the High Court, the petition under Section 482 was allowed and the FIR was quashed.” In a recent decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2011), a three judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Hrishikesh Roy, held thus: “15. Reversing the judgement of the High Court, the petition under Section 482 was allowed and the FIR was quashed.” In a recent decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2011), a three judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Hrishikesh Roy, held thus: “15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.” (c) Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v/ State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2018 (7) SCC 781 , wherein the Court had observed as under :- “[6] In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, 2010 8 SCC 628 the deceased was a driver who had undergone a bypass surgery and was advised against performing any stressful duties. The accused was a superior Officer who had rebuked the deceased harshly and threatened to suspend him when the deceased had failed to comply with his directions. The deceased thereafter committed suicide and left behind a suicide note stating the accused was solely responsible for his death. In these facts, this Court held that there must be allegations to the effect that the accused had either instigated the deceased in some way to commit suicide or had engaged with some other person in conspiracy to do so or that the accused had in some way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. The prayer for quashing preferred by the accused was accepted by this Court and the proceedings were quashed.” 16. In decision in the case of M. Jayanthi (supra), the Court had observed as under :- “9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged.” 17. In the case of M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police v. Velmurugan & Anr. v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238 , the Apex Court observed as under :- 55. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 , observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts. 57. This court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others (1988) 1 SCC 692 , observed in para 7 as under: "The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage." 58. In Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1992) 4 SCC 305 the court observed as under : "131. Section 482 which corresponds to Section 561- A of the old Code and to Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code proceeds on the same principle and deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim "Quadolex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo ipsa, ess uon potest" which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. 132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles." 64. In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in (1992) Suppl.1 SCC p.335, this court had an occasion to examine the scope of the inherent power of the High Court in interfering with the investigation of an offence by the police and laid down the following rule: [SCC pp. 364-65, para 60: SCC (Cri) p. 456, para 60]. 364-65, para 60: SCC (Cri) p. 456, para 60]. "The sum and substance of the above deliberation results in a conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution." 65. In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others (supra), this court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this court made it clear that 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 to 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, on 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 grounds 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 proceedings 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." 18. Taking into consideration the facts as emerging on record and the proposition of law as laid down in the above judgments, this application is allowed. Taking into consideration the facts as emerging on record and the proposition of law as laid down in the above judgments, this application is allowed. In the result, the First Information Report being registered on 26.06.2020 bearing No.11213021200558 of 2020 with Jasdan Police Station, District Rajkot Rural as also the Sessions Case No.2 of 2021 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Rajkot and all other consequential proceedings qua the applicant herein is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.