JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to send for the records of the courts below, peruse the same & after perusal set aside the orders of the cognizance taken against the petitioner or pass any other orders that his Hon’ble Court deems fir & proper.” 2. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred against the order, dated 25.01.2017, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Pali, in Criminal Revision No. 89/2015 and against the order, dated 17.07.2012, passed by the Addl. C.J.M. (Communal Riots), Pali taking cognizance under Sectin 306 I.P.C. against the accused-petitioner in F.R. No. 37/2011 in Criminal Case No. 283/2013, titled Smt. Lal Kanwar Vs. Ajit Singh & Anr. 3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the respondent filed an F.I.R. on 13.04.2011 at Police Station Kotwali, Pali stating therein that the petitioner and his brother, Kiran Singh has falsely implicted his son in a case, and threatened him and caused him mental agony, and that due to the same, his son committed suicide. And that, upon the receipt of such a complaint, the concerned police authorities registered a case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and upon investigation filed a negative Final Report. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon the submission of the negative F.R. by the concerned police authorities, the respondent filed a protest petition, which was treated as a complaint by the concerned Magistrate and he recorded the statement of the respondent under Section 200 Cr.P.C. along with complainant-witnesses C.W. 2 and C.W. 3 Vikram Singh and Pradeep, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the concerned police authorities upon completion of investigation found that the deceased, Narendra, son of the respondent herein, and the respondent frequently quarreled, and that the lifestyle and the character of the respondent was the reason for the suicide of her son. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the concerned police authorities upon completion of investigation found that the deceased, Narendra, son of the respondent herein, and the respondent frequently quarreled, and that the lifestyle and the character of the respondent was the reason for the suicide of her son. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that looking to the complaint so made out by the the respondent, the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. against the petitioner are not made out, and therefore there is no basis whatsoever for the complaint to be taken against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses, Ram Singh and Rameshwarlal and the letter written by the wife of the deceased, Narendra, which was addressed to the District Collector, Pali; wherein the wife alleges that the suicide of the deceased, was due to the deceased’s mother’s actions. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments seeking quashing of an order taking cognizance against accused person/s passed by a subordinate Court; 8.1 Geo Varghese Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2022 (1) SCJ 81 decided on 05.10.2021 “15. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined Under Section 107 of Indian Penal Code 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; 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 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 nstigate 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.” 16. 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.” 16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 has defined the word 'instigate' as under: “Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.” 17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 Indian Penal Code and its co-relation with Section 306 Indian Penal Code has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190 , 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 Indian Penal Code 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.” 18. In a recent pronouncement, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 427 , while considering the co-relation of Section 107 Indian Penal Code with Section 306 Indian Penal Code 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. 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. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 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 v. Bhajan Lal (Bhajan Lal) 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335 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 v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 14 SCC 350 . 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the meantime, liberty has been the casualty. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 Indian Penal Code, this Court is now called upon to perform the task.” 20. At this stage, we may also refer to another recent judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ude Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301 , which elucidated on the essential ingredients of the offence Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code 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. 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. 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 Indian Penal Code. If the Accused plays an active role in tarnishing the selfesteem 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” 21. We may also refer to a two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Anr. (2019) 13 SCC 598 , wherein the judgment rendered by the High Court quashing the FIR Under Section 482 was set aside. In the said case, an FIR was registered Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code stating that the son and daughter-in-law were teachers in a Zila Parishad School where the Accused was also a teacher used to make frequent calls on the mobile of the daughter-in-law, and used to harass her. In the said case, an FIR was registered Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code stating that the son and daughter-in-law were teachers in a Zila Parishad School where the Accused was also a teacher used to make frequent calls on the mobile of the daughter-in-law, and used to harass her. Despite the efforts of the son of the informant in trying to make the Accused see reason and stop calling, the Accused continued with his activity. On 09.02.2015, there was a verbal altercation between the son of the informant and the Accused and on 12.02.2015, he committed suicide leaving a note stating that his family life has been ruined by the Accused who should not be pardoned and should be hanged. Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, a petition was filed by the Accused challenging the FIR, which was allowed by the High Court and thereafter, was challenged before this Court. The appeal was allowed by this Court and made the following observations:- “We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first Respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first Respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against first Respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first Respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the Respondent.” In the above quoted observations of this Court, there is a clear indication that there was a specific averment in the FIR that the Respondent had continuously harassed the spouse of the victim and did not rectify his conduct despite being objected by the victim. Thus, as a matter of fact he had actively facilitated in the commission of suicide. 22. Thus, as a matter of fact he had actively facilitated in the commission of suicide. 22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the Accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the Accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the Accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the Accused and the psyche of the deceased. 26. The Appellant in his petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court has set out detailed facts and circumstances, which unfortunately the High Court failed to even take notice of much less analyse the same before coming to the conclusion. It was stated in the petition that as a PT Teacher, he was imparting Physical Training to the students from 1st to 5th standard and being a member of the Disciplinary Committee, was also charged with the duty of maintaining discipline in the school which included keeping a watch upon students and oversee that they are attending the classes instead of bunking the same and moving around in the school premises without permission. It was also stated that the victim, a student of class 9, generally used to bunk his classes and was warned by the Appellant and other school staff a number of times. On 19.04.2018, he was caught by the Appellant bunking classes and moving around the school campus without any cause or permission and a warning was given to him. It was also stated that the victim, a student of class 9, generally used to bunk his classes and was warned by the Appellant and other school staff a number of times. On 19.04.2018, he was caught by the Appellant bunking classes and moving around the school campus without any cause or permission and a warning was given to him. On 25.04.2018, he was caught bunking classes and again the Appellant issued him a warning and on account of persistent act of bunking classes, reported the same to the Principal of the School, who informed the parents of the boy to come to the school. 27. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students. It is not uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being upto the mark in studies or for bunking classes or not attending the school. The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline, in our considered opinion, would not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide, unless there are repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason. A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the good qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amount to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a student. 34. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure or the extra-ordinary power Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, now stands well defined by series of judicial pronouncements. Undoubtedly, every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The powers being very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power vested in the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The powers being very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power vested in the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. However, the inherent power or the extraordinary power conferred upon the High Court, entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court, or the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 39. Insofar as, the suicide note is concerned, despite our minute examination of the same, all we can say is that suicide note is rhetoric document, penned down by an immature mind. A reading of the same also suggests the hypersensitive temperament of the deceased which led him to take such an extraordinary step, as the alleged reprimand by the Accused, who was his teacher, otherwise would not ordinarily induce a similarly circumstanced student to commit suicide. 40. In the absence of any material on record even, prima-facie, in the FIR or statement of the complainant, pointing out any such circumstances showing any such act or intention that he intended to bring about the suicide of his student, it would be absurd to even think that the Appellant had any intention to place the deceased in such circumstances that there was no option available to him except to commit suicide.” 8.2 State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Unnikrishnan Nair & Ors., 2015 Cri. L.J. 4495 : (2015) 9 SCC 639 , para 10,11,14,1519 11. The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797 by a two-Judge Bench and the discussion therein is to the following effect: “Section 107 Indian Penal Code defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in Indian Penal Code. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.” 14. In Netai Dutta (supra), a two-Judge Bench, while dealing with the concept of abetment Under Section 107 Indian Penal Code 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. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the Appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the Appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the Appellant. The prosecution initiated against the Appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the Appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the First Information Report against the Appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. The prosecution initiated against the Appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the Appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the First Information Report against the Appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the Appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellant and accordingly allow the appeal.” 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 Indian Penal Code 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” 19. Before parting with the case, we are impelled to say something. Mr. Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 & 2 has drawn our attention to a facet of earlier judgment of the High Court wherein it has been mentioned that at one time the deceased was pressurised by some superior officers. We have independently considered the material brought on record and arrived at our conclusion. But, regard being had to the suicide note and other concomitant facts that have been unfurled, we are compelled to recapitulate the saying that suicide reflects a "species of fear". It is a sense of defeat that corrodes the inner soul and destroys the will power and forces one to abandon one's own responsibility. To think of self-annihilation because of something which is disagreeable or intolerable or unbearable, especially in a situation where one is required to perform public duty, has to be regarded as a non-valiant attitude that is scared of the immediate calamity or self-perceived consequence. To think of self-annihilation because of something which is disagreeable or intolerable or unbearable, especially in a situation where one is required to perform public duty, has to be regarded as a non-valiant attitude that is scared of the immediate calamity or self-perceived consequence. We may hasten to add that our submission has nothing to do when a case Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code is registered in aid of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872.” 9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on the behalf of the petitioner and submits that the learned Court below has proceeded to take cognizance against the accused petitioner after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case. 10. This Court observes that it is an established principle of law that before quashing of an order, which is at the stage of cognizance, all that a Court is required to see is whether prima facie an offence is made out against the accused person(s), and if it appears so, then the Court must allow the law to take its due course. 11. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022) 4 SCC 549 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while reiterating upon the settled position of law as laid down in the judgment of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, observed as under:- “The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power Under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra) as under: 102. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra) 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. (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. (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. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2021 SC 1918 . It is no doubt true that the power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court 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 inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies.” 12. Adverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds, as is evident from the record, that the petitioner herein had filed criminal litigation against the deceased and his mother, bearing Criminal Case No. 22/11 wherein allegations for the offences under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were made against them. The respondent herein had also filed a criminal case against the present petitioner, bearing Criminal Case No. 423/10 which was a false case. Ajit Singh’s brother Kiran Singh had caught the respondent engaging in selling kerosene on the black market. Therefore, there was long standing animosity between the parties herein. 13. The respondent herein had also filed a criminal case against the present petitioner, bearing Criminal Case No. 423/10 which was a false case. Ajit Singh’s brother Kiran Singh had caught the respondent engaging in selling kerosene on the black market. Therefore, there was long standing animosity between the parties herein. 13. Furthermore, this Court observes that the learned Court below has proceeded to take cognizance against the accused petitioner herein, merely on the basis of the testimonies of the complainant-witnesses; C.W.1 the respondent-mother, C.W.2 Vikram Singh and C.W. 3 Pradeep. And that, there is no other clinching evidence, absence of a nexus of a close relationship or a suicide note, anything that could raise suspicion or point to the fact that the accused herein had the ability or possibility to abet the commission of suicide of the deceased victim. And further incorrectly proceeded to record the finding that since the deceased Narendra was a good student, which implied that the cause of suicide could not be attributed to poor performance in academics. And that, no clear reason for the suicide of the deceased Narendra was ascertainable, and hence proceeded against the accused on the said basis. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the precedent laws of Geo Varghese (supra), as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shafiya Khan (supra) has categorically dealt with and upheld State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the guidelines for exercise of the High Courts’ inherent powers under Section 482 at the stage of quashing of F.I.R. / cognisance taken against an accused. 15. This Court finds that; owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, absence of any nexus of direct relationship, that the concerned police authorities filed a negative final report upon completion of investigation, the animosity that the respondent had for the petitioner, owing to the fact that she was caught selling kerosene on the black market by him, further fortified by the fact that she had filed a false case against him, and the letter written by the wife of the deceased attributing the death of the deceased victim to the respondent-mother, coupled with the testimony of other witnesses against her and in favour of the petitioner, the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of the law. 15.1 This Court, finds that the present case squarely falls within the ambit of the guidelines as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra). 16. This Court finds that prima facie no offence is made out under Section 306 I.P.C. against the petitioner, since the ingredients for the said offence are not made out. 17. This Court, in light of the above discussion, quashes and sets aside the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner, passed by the learned Court below. 18. Resultantly, the present petition succeeds, and is hereby allowed. Accordingly, all pending applications, if any, are disposed of.