JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the final report in Sessions Case in S.C.No.124 of 2021 dated 3/7/2021, pending on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruvallur.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report, in Sessions Case in S.C.No.124 of 2021 dated 3/7/2021, pending on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruvallur. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows:- The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitioner and (deceased) was a love marriage. The marriage was registered, on 19/10/2020, before the Sub-Registrar, Kodambakkam. It is alleged that on 9/12/2020, the victim hanged herself in a ceiling fan at “Pleasant Days.” Hence, a complaint was lodged before Nazarathpet Police Station, in Crime No.756 of 2020, dated 9/12/2020, under Section 174 (3) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Subsequently Section has been altered for the offences under Sections 306 and 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that due to constant cruelty and torture by the accused, the deceased took the extreme step of ending her life. 4. Pending trial in S.C.No.124 of 2021 before the Mahila Court, Tiruvallur, the petitioner has moved this instant Criminal Original Petition, praying for the relief supra. 5. Heard Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and Mr.D.Selvam, learned counsel for the second respondent. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that case has been filed on a wrong premise. According to him, there is no circumstances available on record, to attract the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further pointed out that Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code would not stand attracted as the Revenue Divisional Officer has given a report to the effect that no dowry demand has been made. To substantiate his case, he has pointed out various statements of the witnesses. 7. The learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i). Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors (2021) 2 SCC 427 (ii). Shabbir Hussain Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7284 of 2017, dated 26/7/2021. (iii). Velladurai Vs. State, rep. 7. The learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i). Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors (2021) 2 SCC 427 (ii). Shabbir Hussain Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7284 of 2017, dated 26/7/2021. (iii). Velladurai Vs. State, rep. By The Inspector of Police (2021 SCC Online – 715) (iv). M. Arjunan Vs. The State (2019) 3 SCC 315 (v). S.A.Margaret Angel and Ors Vs. State and Others {Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15407 of 2016}, decided on 5/10/2018. 8. Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions supra, the learned Senior Counsel prays to quash the final report, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruvallur, in Sessions Case No.124 of 2021, dated 3/7/2021. 9. Whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would point out that there are serious materials unearthed during investigation against the accused, hence opposes the petition. 10. Mr. Selvam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that charges against the accused are serious and heinous. Probative value of the statements cannot be gone into while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court, cannot assume the role of trial Court or conduct a mini trial to assess the probative value of the statements. On looking at the statements of the parents and other witnesses, specific allegations have been made that the deceased was subjected to mental cruelty and there was constant harassment, suspecting her fidelity, which forced the deceased to take the extreme step. 12. When there are materials available on record, whether those statements amount to instigation or incitement is a matter of evidence to be appreciated by the trial Court. From the materials available on record, it could be seen that on the date of alleged suicide, the petitioner's presence was spoken to by the witnesses coupled with their statements and other materials unerringly gives a prima facie inference as to the likelihood of the involvement of the accused in the act of contemplation for suicide by the deceased. From the materials available on record, it could be seen that on the date of alleged suicide, the petitioner's presence was spoken to by the witnesses coupled with their statements and other materials unerringly gives a prima facie inference as to the likelihood of the involvement of the accused in the act of contemplation for suicide by the deceased. When there are materials collected by the prosecution, which prima facie show the involvement of the accused in driving the deceased to take extreme act, this Court, cannot make a roving enquiry while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by appreciating all the evidence, which would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 13. It is also to be noted that in Trial, the question of proof of facts would not always dependent on the evidence. Section 3 of the Evidence Act, defines the expression "Evidence", which stipulates that all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry. The expression of the word "Proved" is also found in Section 3, which provides that A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. 14. The word "matter" found in Section 3 has a wide connotation and it includes inference, statutory presumptions and admissions, etc. All those things are to be seen by the trial Court in the back drop of the evidence of the witnesses, who have spoken about the harassment meted out by the petitioner to the deceased, thereby inflicting mental cruelty. 15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following decisions, viz., (i). Velladurai Vs. State, rep. By The Inspector of Police (2021 SCC Online – 715) (ii). M. Arjunan Vs. The State (2019) 3 SCC 315 (iii). Shabbir Hussain Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7284 of 2017, dated 26/7/2021. 15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following decisions, viz., (i). Velladurai Vs. State, rep. By The Inspector of Police (2021 SCC Online – 715) (ii). M. Arjunan Vs. The State (2019) 3 SCC 315 (iii). Shabbir Hussain Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7284 of 2017, dated 26/7/2021. In the above judgments cited by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that offence under Section 306 of IPC is not made out and those judgements are rendered in appeal while appreciating the substantive evidence. Therefore, the above judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. With regard to the judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427 , the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the manner in which the FIR has been filed in that case, quashed the FIR. Thus, this judgment also will not be helpful to the petitioner. 17. In Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that offence under Section 306 of IPC is serious in nature and it is a crime against the society and therefore disapproved the quashing of the charges on the ground of compromise. In paragraph 38 and 40 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "38. However, before exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal proceedings, the High Court, as observed above, has to be circumspect and have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against the society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society. 39. Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against the society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society. 39. Orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent, where complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons, with a view to extract money from the accused. Furthermore, financially strong offenders would go scot free, even in cases of grave and serious offences such as murder, rape, bride-burning, etc. by buying off informants/complainants and settling with them. This would render otiose provisions such as Sections 306, 498-A, 304-B etc. incorporated in the IPC as a deterrent, with a specific social purpose. 40. In Criminal Jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is lodged and a criminal case is started by the State, it becomes a matter between the State and the accused. The State has a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained in society. It is for the state to prosecute offenders. In case of grave and serious noncompoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a non-compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature, which impacts society." (Emphasis added) 18. To find out whether there is an instigation or incitement or other circumstances to attract the offence under Section 306, it could be seen only by appreciating the evidence placed before the trial Court. Therefore, all the aforesaid issues could be considered only at the time of trial. Therefore, quashing of the final report would be nothing but predetermining the issue without allowing the trial to be taken to its logical conclusion, which is not what is envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the ratio laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases – 335. 19. Therefore, quashing of the final report would be nothing but predetermining the issue without allowing the trial to be taken to its logical conclusion, which is not what is envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the ratio laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases – 335. 19. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court cannot interfere with the final report at the present stage by quashing it and, accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Considering the over all circumstances, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and dispose of the sessions case on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in this quash petition. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.