Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1586 (ALL)

Ritu Yadav v. State of U. P.

2022-09-29

AJAI TYAGI

body2022
JUDGMENT : AJAI TYAGI, J. 1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by applicants, namely, Ritu Yadav, Sunil @ Guddu, Sachin @ Chhotu and Kamlesh Kumar challenging the charge sheet No. 01 dated 18.01.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 419 of 2021, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Jaswant Nagar, District-Etawah and cognizance order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Etawah dated 15.02.2022 and entire proceedings of this case. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid application are that a first information report was lodged at police station-Jaswant Nagar, District-Etawah on 03.10.2021 by opposite party No. 2 Munni Devi with the averments that the marriage of his son Rahul Yadav was solemnized with Ritu Yadav in the year 2010. Ritu Yadav lived happily with her son only for some period. After that she started torturing her son. On 10.08.2021 Ritu Yadav, Sanjay @ Guddu, Sachin @ Chhotu, both son of Keshav Dayal and Kamlesh maternal uncle of Ritu Yadav tortured her son and scuffled with him. Aggrieved with the torture at the hands of the aforesaid persons her son Rahul Yadav has committed suicide on 24.08.2021 at about 11:00 a.m. During the course of investigation, a suicide note was recovered by investigating officer allegedly written by the deceased Rahul Yadav, which is enclosed as Annexure No. 9. I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. inquest report was prepared and post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and post mortem report was prepared, in which ligature mark of 20 cm x 01.5 cm size on the neck, above thyroid cartilage was shown as ante mortem injury. Cause of death was mentioned as asphyxia due to hanging. 3. After completion of investigation, investigating officer reached to the conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide and I.O. submitted charge sheet against all the applicants, namely, Ritu Yadav, Sunil @ Guddu, Sachin @ Chhotu and Kamlesh for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Learned Magistrate concerned took the cognizance on the aforesaid charge sheet on 15.02.2022 and summoned all the four accused persons for trial under Section 306 IPC. Aggrieved with submission of charge sheet and cognizance order, applicants moved this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned Magistrate concerned took the cognizance on the aforesaid charge sheet on 15.02.2022 and summoned all the four accused persons for trial under Section 306 IPC. Aggrieved with submission of charge sheet and cognizance order, applicants moved this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Heard Shri Puneet Bhadauria, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Ram Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, Shri Mthilesh Kumar, learned AGA and carefully perused the record. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant No. 1 Ritu Yadav is wife of deceased Rahul Yadav, who has committed suicide, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers of applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 4 is maternal uncle of applicant No. 1 and no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against any of the applicants. It is further submitted that after the death of deceased Rahul Yadav, his real brother Nishu Kumar son of Suresh Kumar informed the police of P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District-Etawah and his information was entered in G.D. of police station, which is annexed as Annexure No. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in aforesaid information, which is entered in G.D. on 24.08.2021 at 21:31, it is nowhere informed by Nishu Kumar that any of the applicants was responsible for the death of deceased and it is also specifically informed that wife of deceased had gone to house of her brothers in Delhi with children on 22.08.2021 on the eve of Raksha Bandan festival and his brother was alone in the house. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submitted that the information provided by brother of deceased itself shows that at the time of alleged occurrence of suicide, applicants were not with him and wife of deceased had already gone to her brother’s place in Delhi before two day. Hence, there was no reason or occasion on the part of the applicants to make any sort of abetment for compelling him to commit suicide. It is also submitted that the marriage of applicant No. 1 and deceased was solemnized in the year 2011. Hence, the occurrence took place after 10 years of marriage. 6. Hence, there was no reason or occasion on the part of the applicants to make any sort of abetment for compelling him to commit suicide. It is also submitted that the marriage of applicant No. 1 and deceased was solemnized in the year 2011. Hence, the occurrence took place after 10 years of marriage. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that as per averments of first information report, altercation of the deceased with applicants had taken place on 10.08.2021 while the death of the deceased occurred on 24.08.2021 i.e. after 14 days of the said altercation and first information report by mother of the deceased opposite party No. 2 was lodged at police station on 03.10.2021 i.e. after nearly one and half months. This delay in lodging the FIR is nowhere explained by the prosecution. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that in fact after the death of the deceased, his wife applicant No. 1 on 22.09.2021 moved an application (Annexure No. 4) against opposite party No. 2 mother of the deceased and Nishu brother of the deceased under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging FIR against them. On that application, learned court below called for report. Police submitted report on 28.09.2021 (Annexure No. 5), in which it is specifically stated that after in-depth inquiry, no evidence of abetment to commit suicide is surfaced. Consequently, the application moved by applicant No. 1 u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected vide order dated 06.10.2021 (Annexure No. 6). Learned counsel for the applicants emphatically submitted that after rejection of aforesaid application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. first information report was lodged by opposite party No. 2 to save skin of herself and her family and on the basis of false incident dated 10.08.2021, showing in FIR, all the applicants were implicated falsely. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that first of all the brother of deceased Nishu Kumar did not disclose any fact with regard to the abetment on the part of the applicants, when he provided information of death of his brother to the police station, which is entered in G.D. Moreover, if for the sake of argument, the averments made in FIR are taken as true even then no case under Section 306 IPC is made. In the FIR a false incident of altercation between deceased Rahul Yadav and applicants is said to have taken place on 10.08.2021 and alleged suicide of Rahul Yadav was committed on 24.08.2021. There is nothing on record that in the interregnum period of 14 days any act of abetment is committed by any of the applicants. Apart from it, the information provided by Nishu Kumar to police station (Annexure No. 3) goes to show that before two days of the death of the deceased, his wife had gone to Delhi with children on the occasion of festival of Raksha Bandan. Hence, it is admitted fact that at the time of death on 24.08.2021, none of the applicants was with the deceased. 9. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that a suicide note is left by the deceased, which is enclosed as Annexure No. 9. Entry of suicide note is made in case diary. In entire suicide note, none of the applicants is made responsible by the deceased. There is nothing in the suicide note to suggest that applicants were responsible for commission of suicide. Hence, on the basis of suicide note, no offence is made out against the applicants u/s 306 IPC and I.O. also has written in case diary (Annexure No. 12) that nobody was held responsible by Rahul Yadav in his suicide note and nothing is written about his wife. Even then, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against all the applicants u/s 306 IPC, which is result of poor investigation and it is abuse of process of law. 10. Learned counsel for the applicants lastly made legal argument that suicide was committed after 14 days of alleged occurrence in FIR dated 10.08.2021. Hence, there was no proximity of time and live link between the alleged occurrence within interregnum period of 14 days and there was no positive act on the part of the applicants, which can be termed as abetment. Apart from it, since it is admitted fact of prosecution that on 24.08.2021 applicant No. 1 had gone to Delhi and was not with her husband, there cannot be any instigating act on the part of his wife. Hence, learned Magistrate had also taken cognizance without considering the aforesaid position of law. Apart from it, since it is admitted fact of prosecution that on 24.08.2021 applicant No. 1 had gone to Delhi and was not with her husband, there cannot be any instigating act on the part of his wife. Hence, learned Magistrate had also taken cognizance without considering the aforesaid position of law. Hence, the submission of the charge sheet by investigating officer and impugned cognizance order passed by learned Magistrate are bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. 11. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on following judgments: (i) Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2021 and S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4512 of 2019 (ii) Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 427 (iii) Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2018) 7 SCC 433 (iv) State of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 188 (v) S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, 2010 (12) SCC 190 (vi) Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the aforesaid pronouncements, it is held that if there is harassment then mere harassment does not come within the purview of instigation. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that for instigation, ingredients of Section 107 IPC should be there. In this present case, suicide of deceased had taken place after 14 days of the alleged occurrence dated 10.08.2021 in FIR and it is admitted fact on the day of suicide applicants were not there with the deceased, hence, there was no positive action on the part of the applicants, which is proximate to the time of the occurrence and ingredients of Section 107 IPC are not there. 13. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA Shri Mithlesh Kumar submitted that although in suicide note (Annexure No. 9) the deceased has not openly made responsible to any person by name for his death but in the background, it was mainly illicit relationship of his wife applicant No. 1. 13. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA Shri Mithlesh Kumar submitted that although in suicide note (Annexure No. 9) the deceased has not openly made responsible to any person by name for his death but in the background, it was mainly illicit relationship of his wife applicant No. 1. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 in this regard invited the attention of this Court towards a note written by deceased Rahul Yadav approximately before two years of his death, which is filed by way of counter affidavit by opposite party No. 2 as Annexure No. CA-2 and is part of case diary. It is clearly mentioned in this aforesaid note that his wife was having illicit relationship and she was not a lady of good character. Due to which the deceased was perturbed and that was a real abetment due to which, ultimately the deceased committed suicide. Learned counsel argued that it is not necessary that the act of abetment should be a single act, it may be a series of acts or it may be continuous abetment as in this case as the wife of deceased applicant No. 1 was in illicit relationship that can be a continuous abetment for any husband. Hence, investigating officer has rightly submitted the charge sheet and learned court below has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the applicants for trial for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence on submission of charge sheet, the court has to see whether any prima facie offence is made out against the accused or not and only prima facie offence is to be seen and the defence of accused is not to be considered at the stage of cognizance. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the submission of the charge sheet and impugned order taking cognizance, which calls for any interference by this Court. 14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC which reads as under: “107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who: First - Instigates any person to do that thing. 14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC which reads as under: “107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who: First - Instigates any person to do that thing. 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. Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1 - A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 15. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by Apex Court. In the case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, it was observed as under: “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 the Supreme 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.” 16. 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.” 16. In a recent pronouncement, a two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, while considering the corelation of Section 107 IPC with Section 306 IPC has observed as under: “47. The above decision thus arose in a situation where the High Court had declined to entertain a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. However, it nonetheless directed the investigating agency not to arrest the accused during the pendency of the investigation. This was held to be impermissible by this Court. On the other hand, this Court clarified that the High Court if it thinks fit, having regard to the parameters for quashing and the self restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash the investigation and may pass appropriate interim orders as - and may pas apropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law. Clearly therefore, the High Court in the present case has misdirected itself in declining to enquire prima facie on a petition for quashing whether the parameters in the exercise of that jurisdiction have been duly established and if so whether a case for the grant of interim bail has been made out. The settled principles which have been consistently reiterated since the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal include a situation where the allegations made in the FIR 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. This legal position was recently-reiterated in a decision by a two-judge Bench of this Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra. 48. The striking aspect of the impugned judgment of the High Court spanning over fifty-six pages is the absence of any evaluation even prima facie of the most basic issue. This legal position was recently-reiterated in a decision by a two-judge Bench of this Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra. 48. The striking aspect of the impugned judgment of the High Court spanning over fifty-six pages is the absence of any evaluation even prima facie of the most basic issue. The High Court, in other words, failed to apply its mind to a fundamental issue which needed to be considered while dealing with a petition for quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court, by its judgment dated 9 November 2020, has instead allowed the petition for quashing to stand over for hearing a month later, and therefore declined to allow the appellant’s prayer for interim bail and relegated him to the remedy under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. In the meantime, liberty has been the casualty. The High Court having failed to evaluate prima facie whether the allegations in the FIR, taken as they stand, bring the case within the fold of Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, this Court is now called upon to perform the task.” 17. At this stage, this Court may also refer to another recent judgment of a two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana on 25th July, 2019 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 233 of 2010, which elucidated on the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the following words: “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 18. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 18. In the backdrop of the circumstances and material on record of this case, the role of applicant No. 1 (wife of the deceased) and applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (brothers and maternal uncle of applicant No. 1) are distinguishable. Although the deceased has not named any person in suicide note to be held responsible for his act of suicide, yet it is logical to read the contention of suicide note in the light of writing notes by deceased, as filed by opposite party No. 2 as Annexure No. CA-2 in his counter affidavit, which suggests that according to the deceased, his wife applicant No. 1 was in some illicit relationship and this fact made him perturbed and ultimately led to commission of suicide. Hence, as a matter of fact, she had actively facilitated in the commission of suicide. What is required to constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is that there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide. It is not always necessary that ‘a single act’ should constitute abetment. Abetment may be continuous by the conduct of abettor as seems in the case in hand. Every case should be examined on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surroundings circumstances, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the pysche of the accused. 19. If this Court goes by the contents of suicide note in the light of note writings of deceased (Annexure No. CA-2) then it can be transpired that there was question of chastity of applicant No. 1, which was hovering in the mind of the deceased and caused abetment continuously increasing with the passage of time. This Court is not agreeable with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that no person is named in suicide note who can be held responsible for his death. Because whatever written in the suicide note depends upon the mental state of the person at the time of commission of suicide. This Court is not agreeable with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that no person is named in suicide note who can be held responsible for his death. Because whatever written in the suicide note depends upon the mental state of the person at the time of commission of suicide. Circumstances in the backdrop of the suicide note are subject to evidence which shall be led by the prosecution during the trial. Doors of evidence cannot be shut and opportunity of evidence leading to the circumstances of the death of the deceased should not be closed at the outset as in the case in hand where the contents of suicide notes and note writings of deceased, as discussed above, indicate that deceased had in so many words allegated applicant No. 1, for his act to commit suicide. Hence, in the cases on which applicants have relied upon do not apply to the facts of this case at this stage because prosecution has yet to get opportunity to lead evidence. 20. Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2022 with Criminal Appeal No. 841 of 2022 State of Uttar Pradesh and Another vs. Akhil Sharda and Others has recently held that at the stage of deciding the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. mini trial is not permissible. Hence, the aforesaid legal position does not permit this court to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order and proceedings of this case against applicant No. 1, who is wife of the deceased. 21. As far as the applicant No. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, this is admitted fact that applicant No. 2 and 3 are brothers of applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 4 is her maternal uncle. With regard to applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, there is no evidence on record which can show their involvement in the act of abetment. Combined perusal of the suicide note and note writings of deceased (Annexure No. CA-2) nowhere suggests that applicant No. 2, 3 and 4 committed any act, either explicit or implicit, which can come within the purview of definition of abetment as contemplated under Section 107 IPC. If there is allegation in note writings of deceased against brothers of applicant No. 1 that they had beaten the deceased or allegation by opposite party No. 2 in FIR that on 10.08.2021, applicant Nos. If there is allegation in note writings of deceased against brothers of applicant No. 1 that they had beaten the deceased or allegation by opposite party No. 2 in FIR that on 10.08.2021, applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 misbehaved and scuffled with the deceased, it cannot be said to be an act of abetment for committing suicide. Hence, there is no iota of evidence against applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 even learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 could not point out any explicit or implicit role of applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 towards abetment. 22. The following observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Others may be relevant to note at this stage: “The whole some power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent power, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purposes. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature.” 23. In the case of M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another, Apex Court observed as under: “It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” 24. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” 24. Again in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, Hon’ble Apex Court observed in paragraph 7 as under: “7. 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 utilised 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.” 25. Hence, in the absence of any specific allegation and material of definite nature, it would be travesty of justice to ask applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to face the trial. In the absence of any material or even prima facie in the FIR, statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, pointing out any such circumstances showing any such act or intention that applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 intended to bring about the suicide of deceased Rahul Yadav, it would be absurd to even think that applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had any intention to place the deceased in such circumstances due to which he committed suicide. 26. In the light of above discussion, this Court finds no ground to continue the proceedings of this case against applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and put them on trial when no offence under Section 306 IPC is disclosed against them. Hence, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution against them. 27. 26. In the light of above discussion, this Court finds no ground to continue the proceedings of this case against applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and put them on trial when no offence under Section 306 IPC is disclosed against them. Hence, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution against them. 27. Hence, the charge sheet, impugned cognizance and summoning order and entire proceedings in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed only against the applicant No. 2 Sunil @ Guddu Son of Keshav Dayal, Applicant No. 3 Sachin @ Chhotu Son of Keshav Dayal and Applicant No. 4 Kamlesh Kumar son of Lal Singh Yadav. 28. Accordingly, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected to the extent of applicant No. 1 Ritu Yadav and partly allowed with regard to Applicant No. 2 Sunil, Applicant No. 3 Sachin @ Chhotu and applicant No. 4 Kamlesh Yadav.