JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Mahatha, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Sardhu Mahato, the learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution as well as proceeding of Mahuwatand P.S. Case No. 33 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 907 of 2018 as well as order taking cognizance dated 23.2.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bermo at Tenughat, pending in the same learned court. 3. The prosecution case has been filed on the basis of written report of the informant Deepak Kuber, submitted to the Officer In charge Lalpania P.S. Bokaro, to the effect that on 28.8.2018 at about 9 PM or 10 PM, his father, Sohan Choudhary, Junior Engineer, TTPS, Lalpania, committed suicide in his quarter No. D/12/67 due to pressure given by Shri Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, the then D.G.M. (HR) the petitioner herein. It is further alleged that the petitioner repeatedly tortured him to vacate the quarter, and that the petitioner also threatened him to suspend from the service, the proof of which is the departmental letter no. 111 dated 27.8.2018. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He further submits that the petitioner was posted and working as Deputy General Manager (HR), Tenughat Thermal Power Station (TTPS), Bokaro at the time of alleged occurrence and the petitioner retired on 30.6.2019. He further submits that the departmental letter no. 111 dated 27.8.2018 is alleged to be annexed with the written report however that is not available with the F.I.R. He submits that however the petitioner has obtained that letter under the provisions of Right to Information Act and has been brought on record by way of filing Annexure-2. He submits that the deceased Sohan Choudhary, Junior Electrical Engineer, TTPS was earlier allotted Quarter No. E/4/40 by the Department and subsequently he was allotted Qr. No. D-1267 of which he has taken possession from the Estate Department. The deceased Sohan Choudhary did not deliver possession of the earlier allotted quarter no. He submits that the deceased Sohan Choudhary, Junior Electrical Engineer, TTPS was earlier allotted Quarter No. E/4/40 by the Department and subsequently he was allotted Qr. No. D-1267 of which he has taken possession from the Estate Department. The deceased Sohan Choudhary did not deliver possession of the earlier allotted quarter no. E/4/40 to the Estate Department and knowingly allowed outsiders to take unauthorized possession of the said quarter and in that circumstance the petitioner has issued said letter dated 27.8.2018 to the deceased Sohan Choudhary, Junior Electrical Engineer. He submits that the petitioner has issued that letter in the official capacity and no case of abetment under section 306 IPC has been made out so far the petitioner is concerned. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Mahatha, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that due to his torture the deceased has committed suicide and this is subject matter of trial and this Court may not interfere at this stage. He submits that section 306 IPC has been recently considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra K.C. vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 2 SCC 129 and he relied on paragraph nos. 16 and 24 of the said judgment. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that there is allegation against the petitioner and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. 7. In light of the above submission of the learned counsels for the parties, the Court has perused the materials on record. In the written report of the son of the deceased late Sohan Choudhary, it has been disclosed that the letter dated 27.8.2018 has been issued by the petitioner for vacating the quarter no. E/4/40. Admittedly, the two quarters have been allotted to the deceased and he was required to vacate quarter no. E/4/40 and for that the petitioner has issued the letter for vacating the quarter. This has been done by the petitioner in official capacity and the said action is being taken up by the officer, he is protected under section 197 Cr.P.C. The learned court has taken cognizance in absence of any sanction. Apart from that, nothing has been alleged in the F.I.R as to what is the mode of torture by this petitioner. This has been done by the petitioner in official capacity and the said action is being taken up by the officer, he is protected under section 197 Cr.P.C. The learned court has taken cognizance in absence of any sanction. Apart from that, nothing has been alleged in the F.I.R as to what is the mode of torture by this petitioner. It is well settled that even mere use of abusive words by the accused are not sufficient to constitute offence of abetment or suicide as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Arjunan vs. State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, AIR 2019 SC 43 . The judgment relied by Mr. Mahatha, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 is not in dispute, in that case, the suicide note has been found of the deceased and on that ground, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that power under section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be used with circumspection. The Court has perused the cognizance order dated 23.2.2019 and finds that the cognizance order is also not passed having been applied the judicial mind. Even the word cognizance has been filled up in the blank portion of the said order which suggest that judicial mind has not been applied by the learned court. What are the prima facie materials are required to be disclosed in the cognizance order which is lacking in the case in hand. 8. Accordingly, the cognizance order dated 23.2.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bermo at Tenughat, pending in the same learned court in connection with Mahuwatand P.S. Case No. 33 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 907 of 2018 is set aside. 9. The matter is remitted back to the learned concerned court to pass a fresh order in the light of the discussion made hereinabove. 10. Cr. M.P. No. 2477 of 2019 is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. I.A. if any, stands disposed of.