JUDGMENT : NAVNEET KUMAR, J. Heard learned counsel Mahesh Kumar Sinha (2) appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Special P.P. Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal appearing on behalf of the State. 2. At the outset, it appears that the opposite party No.2, Poonam Kumari, who is the informant in the present case, choose not to appear in this case, even after the substituted service of notice, i.e. the paper publication, as evident from the previous order passed by this court in this case, particularly, the order passed on 19-12-2023, where it is found that the last indulgence was given to the opposite party No. 2 by way of last chance to appear in this case, but despite the order dated 19-12-2023, the informant-opposite party No. 2 did not appear in this case. 3. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 18-09-2019 passed by the court of learned Additional Session Judge-XI, Dhanbad in S.T. No.123 of 2019, arising out of Gomia G.R.P.S. Case No.06 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.69 of 2008 dated 24-07-2008 registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. Argument on behalf of the Petitioner: 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the gist of the allegations as set out in the fardbeyan of the informant Poonam Kumari was that her husband Satyendra Choudhury (since deceased) was a science teacher since last one year in Bharat Singh Public School, Ambedkar Colony, Phusro, and on 23-07-2008, her husband went to the school, but thereafter he did not return to his house and on 24-07-2008 at about 5 AM in the morning, her relative Dinesh Kumar Singh informed to the informant that her husband committed suicide and his dead body was lying along the railway track. It has further been submitted that after receiving the said news, the informant rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of her husband. 5. It has further been submitted that after receiving the said news, the informant rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of her husband. 5. It has further been alleged by the informant that since last 3 to 4 days of the incident, her husband was mentally disturbed and on query, he disclosed to her that he was being tortured and humiliated by the petitioner Nalini Naire, because he did not know the English language and because of such torture and humiliation caused by the petitioner to her husband, suicide was committed by him and it was claimed by the informant that her husband was compelled by the petitioner to take the extreme step of putting on end to his life by committing suicide. 6. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no ingredients of abetment have been substantiated from the evidences collected during the course of the investigation to constitute the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC against the petitioner and the petitioner being the Principal of the said school, Bharat Singh Public School, Ambedkar Colony, Phusro, was performing her official duty and at the time of the death, the deceased was a science teacher and no incident has been narrated by an iota of evidence to make out a case under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner. 7. It has further been submitted that the entire allegations against the petitioner are based on the suicide note, ‘which is said to have been recovered from the pocket of the deceased’ and the seizure list was prepared accordingly by the police, but from the perusal of the said suicide note, it is not found that the deceased had narrated and disclosed any incident of principal causing him torture and humiliation which led him to commit suicide except ‘bald accusation’. 8. 8. Further, it has been submitted from the statements of the witnesses examined by the I.O. during the course of the investigation vide para 21 Bhikha Chatterjee and vide para 22 Hari Mohan Prasad who did not support the case of prosecution as both of them stated that they had never heard about the torture, humiliation or harassment of any kind caused by the petitioner to the deceased although both the witnesses are teacher in the same school and witness Satrudhan Singh vide Para-29 of the Case Diary stated that there was a difference between the deceased and his wife (informant) and as a result of which, the deceased had committed suicide, but the I.O. unfortunately did not consider this aspect while submitting the charge sheet against the petitioner and the present case has been instituted falsely with ulterior motive by the informant’s people to extract money from the school management and in the result, wife of the deceased (informant) was paid to a sum of Rupees 4.5 lakhs by the school management and this fact has come in para-9 and para-38 of the case diary. 9. It has further been submitted that only on the basis of the suicide note, the requirements of the abetment within the meaning of section 306 of IPC are not substantiated, in view of the fact that the petitioner, being the Principal, has been discharging his official duty and she has been taking the class of English of several teachers and deceased was also one of them and only because of this, it can’t be inferred that the deceased was suffering from humiliation because of the behavior of the Principal and thus, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the case diary does not contain any material or circumstance, which would even make prime facie case against the petitioner in order to invoke the offence of abetment to commit suicide within the meaning of section 306 of the IPC. 10. 10. It has further been submitted that the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner only on the basis of sweeping observation that there is ample material to show that being the Principal of the alleged school, the petitioner has humiliated the deceased as the deceased has no knowledge of English and the deceased has committed suicide in the anticipation since he had no knowledge of English and therefore he could be ousted from the service and because of such anticipation, the deceased has committed suicide, although he was very much in the service and the efforts taken by the Principal to improve English of the deceased by taking his class along with other teachers for improving English does not amount to instigation, in any stretch of imagination, caused to the deceased by the Principal, who was just solemnly performing her duty and the Court below has mechanically, without proper application of judicial mind, has passed the impugned order against the petitioner. 11. To support his submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese versus the State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in (2021) 19 SCC 144 and submitted that there is no ground available in the entire case diary, from the evidences, for presuming that the petitioner has committed the offence under section 306 of IPC and the learned Trial Court observed that this is not the stage at the time of framing of charge to go into the details of evidences as collected by the I.O. during the course of the investigation. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even prima facie case is not made out against this petitioner in order to presume the guilt of the accused, as evident from the evidences of the witnesses and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and fit to be set-aside. Arguments on behalf of the prosecution: 12. On the other hand, learned Special P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there are ample materials in order to constitute the offence under section 306 of IPC against the petitioner and therefore the learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge. Arguments on behalf of the prosecution: 12. On the other hand, learned Special P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there are ample materials in order to constitute the offence under section 306 of IPC against the petitioner and therefore the learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge. It has further been pointed out that the suicide note of the deceased has been found, upon which the signature has been verified by the FSL report and it has been found that the signature was of the deceased (husband of the informant-O.P.2) and further after taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses, including the restatement of the informant (Para 2), Dinesh Kumar Singh (Para 6), Anil Kumar Jha (Para 7), Dharmender Kumar (para-8), Upendra Kumar Pandey (Para 9), Susheela Devi (Para10), Arun Kumar Mandal (Para 11), Satish Kumar Sah (Para 12), Bhola Bhuiya (Para 13), Ramjeet Yadav (Para 20), Bhikha Chatterjee (Para 21) of the case diary and it is clear that there is no legal point to interfere with the impugned order and this Criminal Revision is fit to be dismissed. 13. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case including the case diary. 14. In the light of aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is manifest that the petitioner is the Principal of the school and the allegation against her is to cause the offence of “Abetment of Suicide” committed by her teacher. It is settled principle of law that at a stage considering an application for discharge, the court must proceed on the assumption that material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from materials, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence or not. 15. In the case of Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed: “20. 15. In the case of Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed: “20. ……The principles holding the field under Sections 227 and 228, CrPC are well-settled, courtesy, inter alia, State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 ; Union of India v. Prafulla K Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 ; Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip N Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715 ; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra B Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76 ; Dilawar B Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 ; Chitresh K Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 ; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 ; Dinesh Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 137 ; Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 ; and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan Bansal, (2020) 2 SCC 290 . We need only refer to some, starting with Prafulla K Samal (supra), where, after considering Ramesh Singh (supra), K P Raghavan v. M H Abbas, AIR 1967 SC 740 and Almohan Das v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 520 , it was laid down as under: ‘10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.’ 22. In a recent judgment viz. State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, this Court held: ‘7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed. 8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. 8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only. 9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the charge-sheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the I.O. 10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. … 11. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227 Cr. P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. 12. P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. 12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial.’ (emphasis supplied) 23. On a careful conspectus of the legal spectrum, juxtaposed with our view on the facts and merits expressed hereinbefore, we are satisfied that there is no suspicion, much less strong or grave suspicion that the appellants are guilty of the offence alleged. It would be unjustified to make the appellants face a full-fledged criminal trial in this backdrop. In an appeal dealing with the refusal of the High Court to quash an FIR under Section 482, CrPC albeit, this Court, while setting aside the judgment impugned therein and quashing that FIR, took the view that ‘…the Appellants are to be protected against vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution, and from unnecessarily being put through the rigours of an eventual trial.’ The protection against vexatious and unwanted prosecution and from being unnecessarily dragged through a trial by melting a criminal proceeding into oblivion, either through quashing a FIR/Complaint or by allowing an appeal against an order rejecting discharge or by any other legally permissible route, as the circumstances may be, in the deserving case, is a duty cast on the High Courts. The High Court should have intervened and discharged the appellants. But this Court will intervene, being the sentinel on the qui vive.” 16. In the present case, it is found that the informant opposite party No. 2 had instituted a case against this petitioner, alleging therein that her husband Satyendra Choudhary had committed suicide, because the petitioner being the Principal of Bharat Singh Public School, Ambedkar Colony, Phusro had been causing torture and humiliation to her husband because the deceased husband was having very poor knowledge in English language, who was a science teacher in that school. 17. In order to appreciate the plea of defence for discharge, it is necessary to appreciate the word “abetment” for the scope of section 306 (Abetment of suicide) and ingredients which are essential for abetment as set out in section 107 of IPC. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under: “306. 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.” The Key word in section 306 of IPC is ‘abetment’ which is defined in Section 107 of IPC. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code reads thus: “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 instigate the doing of that thing.” While interpreting the word “instigation” as mentioned in Section 107 of IPC it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar Vrs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 in para 20 as under: 20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 in para 20 as under: 20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 18. From the statements of the witnesses examined by the I.O. during the course of the investigation, it is found that none of the witnesses stated about any specific act of instigation of any kind of torture and humiliation caused to the deceased by the Principal (the petitioner) and the entire allegations are based on the suicide note, where it is written that the Principal of Bharat Singh Public School had always been torturing him, that is why, he has committed suicide. From the contents of the alleged ‘suicide note’ as contained in the seizure list of case diary vide para-4 that the petitioner Smt. M. Nalini Naire used to torture the deceased always that’s why he committed suicide and in the evening of 21st day of July, 2008, the petitioner had scolded her and the alleged incident was said to have taken place on 23/24th July 2008 and as such there is no proximity in the alleged scolding and the occurrence. Thus, from the suicide note, it is not found at all that the petitioner being the Principal of the school, where the deceased was teacher, had been instigating the deceased to commit suicide. It is settled that abetment, in order to attract offence u/s 306 of IPC, involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a thing. It is settled that abetment, in order to attract offence u/s 306 of IPC, involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a thing. In the present case, it has come into evidence that the petitioner being the Principal had been discharging her duties for taking class of English of those teachers, whose English language was poor and the deceased was one of the teachers as his English was poor. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of an offence u/s 306 of IPC. In this case, from the evidences, it is not found that the petitioner has aided or instigated the alleged suicide. 19. It appears from the case diary that the statements of the witnesses, whose statements have been recorded including the restatement of the informant in Para 2, it is found that except the suicide note, no specific statement has been made about any incident of causing torture and cruelty by the Principal (petitioner) to the deceased. 20. The witnesses Dinesh Kumar Singh, Anil Kumar Jha, Upendra Kumar Pandey, Susheela Devi, Arun Kumar Mandal, Satish Kumar Sah, Bhola Bhuiya and Ramjeet Yadav vide paras 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 20 of the Case Diary, all of them have stated only about the suicide note and further they have also stated that because of the poor English, the deceased was suffering with humiliation and torture was being caused by the Principal, who was alleged to have been accusing the deceased for having poor English language and therefore the deceased has committed suicide, but from their statements, no specific act of instigation has been narrated by any one of witnesses and thus no intent has been uttered about causing torture and cruelty by the Principal to the deceased, although they have stated that she was taking the class of English of associate teachers and this deceased was also one of the associate teachers and this act of Principal was not amounting to instigation. 21. 21. Further, it has come from the statement of Bhika Chatterjee, who has been examined by the I.O., which is evident from para 21 of the case diary, who is the teacher in the said school since 1990 and she specifically stated that she did not know that the Principal was causing torture to the deceased nor the deceased had ever told this witness that the deceased was humiliated and tortured by petitioner. Thus, this witness, being the teacher of the said school, has not supported the allegations against the petitioner at all. 22. Further, it has been found from the statement of Hari Mohan Prasad, who has been examined by the I.O., whose statement has been recorded vide para 22 of the case diary, in which, he has stated that on the fateful day, i.e. on 23.07.2008, the deceased had come to school and took two classes. This witness had categorically stated that he never came to know that the Principal of the school was causing any torture to the deceased. He had stated that the deceased was not having good command over English language and therefore, the Principal had been taking classes of teachers to improve English language for four days in a week and the deceased was one of those teachers. Thus, this witness Hari Mohan Prasad, who was also in the same school, has also not supported the allegations against the petitioner at all. 23. Further, the witness Satrudhan Singh, who was examined and his statement was recorded vide para 29 of the case diary, had categorically stated that the deceased was very much disappointed from his family and he had always been in distress and tension. He has also stated that the deceased used to talk to himself loudly even alone in the school. He categorically stated that he had come to know that the deceased and his wife had been in dispute and there was difference between them and because of “family dispute” he (deceased) committed suicide and thus he has totally falsified the case of the prosecution and this witness is very competent witness being the Member of the Managing Committee of the said school, i.e. Bharat Singh Public School. 24. 24. From the aforesaid versions of the witnesses, particularly, the witnesses, whose statement has been recorded vide paragraphs 21, 22 and 29 namely Bhikha Chatterjee, Hari Mohan Prasad and Satrudhan Singh of the case diary, it is found that the deceased has committed suicide not because of any kind of instigation or abetment by causing torture and humiliation by the Principal, rather he has committed suicide mainly because of depression caused to him due to his family dispute and the deceased had been suffering with distress and tension due to the differences with his wife-informant in his family. 25. Further, it is also manifest from the statements of the witnesses that no particular incident has been uttered by any of the witnesses, by which, it can be inferred that it was the Principal, who has humiliated and tortured the deceased and because of such torture and humiliation the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in order to infer that the principal had instigated the deceased and thus the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide is not found at all. 26. In view of aforesaid statements it’s crystal clear that the deceased was seized with acute depression and mental agony not because of behavior of the principal (the petitioner) of the school but because of his own family disputes having differences with his wife informant and the informant instituted this case in order to extract money by way of compensation by mounting pressure upon the school management as all these facts have come in evidence. However this fact has also come into evidence that the petitioner being the principal of the school was taking classes of English for teachers who were weak in English language and this deceased was one of those teachers who was attending classes of English. Such act of principal cannot be construed as abetment within the meaning of Section 306 of IPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India indicating the meaning of instigation in order to constitute the offence for abetment to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code has considered the land mark cases on the previous occasions and held in the case of Geo Varghese versus the State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2021) 19 SCC 144 as under:- “27. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students. (2021) 19 SCC 144 as under:- “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. 29. Thus, the appellant having found the deceased boy regularly bunking classes, first reprimanded him but on account of repeated acts, brought this fact to the knowledge of the Principal, who called the parents on telephone to come to the school. No further overt act has been attributed to the appellant either in the First Information Report or in the statement of the complainant, nor anything in this regard has been stated in the alleged suicide note. The alleged suicide note only records insofar as, the appellant is concerned, ‘THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL’. Thus, even the suicide note does not attribute any act or instigation on the part of the appellant to connect him with the offence for which he is being charged. 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. 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. 41. In the absence of any specific allegation and material of definite nature, not imaginary or inferential one, it would be travesty of justice, to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience and the appellant who is a teacher would certainly suffer great prejudice, if he has to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. 42. Bearing in mind the factual aspects of the case delineated herein above and the legal principles enunciated by a series of pronouncements of this Court discussed herein above, we are of the view that High Court was not justified in dismissing the application under section 482 CrPC for quashing the First Information Report in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.” 27. In the aforesaid background of observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is found that the learned Trial Court has committed gross error in appreciating the statements of the witnesses and other evidences collected during the course of investigation by the I.O. 28. It is well settled principle of law that in absence of any material on record, a false prosecution case should not be continued, particularly, in the criminal matters for want of evidence in a routine manner. In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that under certain circumstances, the Court has to interfere where it is blatantly visible that the continuance of the criminal proceedings will result in abuse of law and where the Courts thinks that it has become necessary to secure the ends of justice. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that under certain circumstances, the Court has to interfere where it is blatantly visible that the continuance of the criminal proceedings will result in abuse of law and where the Courts thinks that it has become necessary to secure the ends of justice. In Geo Varghese versus the State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Court also observed: “37. In State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 (1), this Court held that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to specify an exhaustive list of the cases, where such power should be exercised. However, by way of illustration, the Court laid down the following categories of cases wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. “102….(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 F.I.R. 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.” 29. Further, if the allegations against the accused person(s) are omnibus in nature and any specific role is not attributed, such kind of criminal proceedings should be discouraged. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Mishra & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 978 observed as under: “24. In a decision of recent vintage, this Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 , after considering various precedents, held that the rejection of the prayer for quashing the criminal case against the in-laws of the complainant wife therein was unjustified. The appeal was allowed by quashing the FIR against those appellants in the said case. The Court, while granting relief, observed as under: “21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” (emphasis supplied) 30. Taking note from the well-established law as discussed above vis-a-vis the facts of the case, it is found that the allegations levelled against the accused/petitioner are based on scanty evidences. Taking note from the well-established law as discussed above vis-a-vis the facts of the case, it is found that the allegations levelled against the accused/petitioner are based on scanty evidences. Moreover, such suspicion against the petitioner does not make out a prima facie case to implicate her (petitioner) in this case. Also, the ingredients of S. 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not found in the evidences collected during course of investigation. None of the witnesses nor the suicide note reveals about any incident of instigation by the petitioner to the deceased to commit suicide. No any incident has come in light about scolding or using abusive languages or allegations of reprimand against the deceased by the petitioner, who was simply discharging her duty by taking classes of so many teachers for improving their English language and the deceased was one of them. Even the witnesses, who are in the school, have falsified the case of prosecution and categorically stated that the deceased committed suicide due to family dispute arising in the wake of differences with his wife (informant) who for taking compensation from school as found in Para 38 of the case diary, this false case has been instituted to create pressure upon the school to extract money by way of compensation. The witness Rajesh Kumar Singh vide Para 38 of the case diary stated that he was joint secretary of the said school and he did not know about the alleged torture caused by the petitioner to the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, the petitioner is being unnecessarily dragged in a criminal prosecution which will entail no result except embarrassment and pointless consumption of time of the Courts, it has become indispensable for this Court to put an end to such false criminal proceedings. 31. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad has committed gross error in passing the impugned order dated 18.09.2019, which does not hold good. 32. Accordingly, the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge-XI, Dhanbad in S.T. No.123 of 2019, and M.C.A. No. 655 of 2019, arising out of Gomia G.R.P.S. Case No.06 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.69 of 2008 against this petitioner is set-aside and the petitioner is discharged from the liabilities of criminal prosecution/ liabilities in this case. 33. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is allowed as above.