Order : ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J. 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking the quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No.312/2021. This FIR was registered at Police Station, Bhatta Basti, District Jaipur City (North), for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was lodged on 11.10.2021, on the complaint submitted by Smt. Neeta Mathur who is respondent No. 2 in this petition. It is stated by the complainant in her complaint that herself, her husband Shri Sunil Mathur, and her son Yash Mathur were residing in House No.4 D- 22 Housing Board, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. She further mentioned that her sister-in-law, Smt. Anita Mathur, had visited Jaipur for the last rites of the complainant’s father-in-law. It is alleged that, shortly before the death, Smt. Anita Mathur took advantage of her father-in-law's ill health to prepare a forged and fabricated Will concerning the house and multiple bank accounts. It is also alleged that this Will was subsequently utilized to file a civil suit aimed at usurping ornaments kept in a bank locker and the residential property. The FIR also specifies that Smt. Anita Mathur had filed several false complaints in the police station with intention to get them evicted from the aforementioned house. It is also alleged in the complaint that when the complainant’s son, Yash Mathur, was selected for the Indian Air Force, Smt. Anita Mathur filed a false complaint against him, allegedly to pressurize the family. Due to this very reason, his son was unable to complete his police verification, thereby stressing about his future, and consequently slid into depression. The FIR finally alleges that, despite counseling from friends, relatives, neighbours, and his father, the son frustrated by the continuous complaints filed against him, committed suicide on 10.10.2021, between approximately 5:00-5:30PM. 3. Before moving on, it is also pertinent to take note that the complainant-respondent No.2 in her reply to this petition has also brought the notice of this Court to a suicide note left by the deceased and same is being reproduced as under:- “ I am Quitting because I am tired from my life since childhood. 3. Before moving on, it is also pertinent to take note that the complainant-respondent No.2 in her reply to this petition has also brought the notice of this Court to a suicide note left by the deceased and same is being reproduced as under:- “ I am Quitting because I am tired from my life since childhood. I have always seen my parents fighting on Different issues which makes me weak from inside But there love for me bring me energy too. Since 2013 After my Grandfather's death everything become Worst. My Aunty (Bhua) make our life like hell Since then everything became worse. She filed fake case & police complains to tease us. She passes out many negative comments at many moment This all make my mother mentally ill. She got an Brain Hamarage because of this shit. My Parents became fustrated & After Corona Our Economic Condition also get very low. So these circumstances forced me to do this Action. I am sorry mumma... I Love You Yash Mathur" 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that no case under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. Learned senior counsel argues that the suicide note, if taken at face value would further reveal that there is no direct nexus between the incident and the alleged harassment by petitioner No.1. Learned senior counsel averred that a civil dispute is going on between the parties and such a civil suit and a complaint to the SHO cannot possibly be considered harassment as the petitioner is exercising the legal remedies available to her. Learned senior counsel finally contended that due to reasons such as huge gap between the complaints against the deceased and the deceased committing suicide, coupled with several other problems the deceased had already been going through, it cannot be said that the petitioners in any way induced or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the following judgments:- 1. Abhinav Mohan Delkar V. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , decided on 18.08.2025 reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725. 2. R. Sashirekha V. State of Karnataka and Ors. , decided on 27.03.2025 reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 671. 3. Patel Babubhai Manohardas and Ors. Abhinav Mohan Delkar V. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , decided on 18.08.2025 reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725. 2. R. Sashirekha V. State of Karnataka and Ors. , decided on 27.03.2025 reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 671. 3. Patel Babubhai Manohardas and Ors. V. State of Gujarat , decided on 05.03.2025 reported in 2025 INSC 322 . 4. Mahendra Awase V. State of M.P , decided on17.01.2025 reported in (2025) 4 SCC 801 . 5. Naresh Kumar V. State of Haryana , decided on 22.02.2024 reported in (2024) 3 SCC 573 . 6. Prakash and Ors. V. State of Maharashtra decided on 20.12.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835. 7. Mohit Singhal and Anr. V. State of Uttarakhand , decided on 01.12.2023 reported in 2023 INSC 1035 . 8. Geo Varghese V. State of Rajasthan and Anr. , decided on 05.10.2021 reported in (2021) 19 SCC 144 . 9. M. Arjunan V. State Rep by Its Inspector of Police , decided on 04.12.2018 reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315 . 10. Shabbir Hussain V. State of Madhya Pradesh , decided on 26.07.2021 arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 7284/2017. 11. Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar V. State of M.P. , decided on 01.05.2002 reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 . 12. Damodar Sharma V. State of Rajasthan decided by Rajasthan High Court, on 23.02.2006 arising out of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.542 of 2005. 13. Joyeeta Saha and Anr V. State of W.B. decided on 31.07.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Cal. 14. Karamjeet Kaur V. State of Punjab and Haryana , decided by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 08.02.2024 arising out of CRA AS No. 248 of 2023. 6. Learned State Counsel has placed on record the factual report dated 03.12.2025. It appears from bare perusal of the factual report that there is a dispute between the complainant and petitioner No.1 with regard to the ancestral house and a civil suit is also pending between them. It is further averred that when petitioner No.1 got information regarding selection of deceased in the Indian Air Force, she lodged a complaint against the deceased and his family, with an intention to harass them due to which the deceased slid into depression and committed suicide, which is reflected from his suicide note. It is further averred that when petitioner No.1 got information regarding selection of deceased in the Indian Air Force, she lodged a complaint against the deceased and his family, with an intention to harass them due to which the deceased slid into depression and committed suicide, which is reflected from his suicide note. Finally, it has been concluded by the Investigating Agency that offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against petitioner No.1. However, nothing has been mentioned in the factual report with regard to the other petitioners which prima facie shows that offence has not been found proved against petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the deceased was harassed by the petitioners to such an extent that he had no option left but to end his life. The petitioners got false cases registered against him, creating obstacles in his career even though he had no connection in any of those cases. He further submits that this is a clear case of abetment of suicide and there is no ground to quash the FIR under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC. 8. Now the moot question before this Court is whether from the conjoint perusal of the FIR and the suicide note left by the deceased, this incident would constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC . 9. From reading of the FIR and Suicide Note, some undisputed facts are that there is a civil dispute between the parties and a civil suit is also going on. It is also an admitted fact that on the basis of the complaint submitted by petitioner No.1, matter was enquired by the concerned SHO and complaint under Sections 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the executive magistrate praying to seek bonds from the complainant, her husband and the deceased to maintain peace. 10. For a thorough evaluation of the pending dispute, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC which read 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.” “107. 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.” “107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- (1) Instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) 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 (3) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 11. As is clear from the plain language of the Sections that to attract the ingredient of Section 306 , the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly- 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. 12. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Awase Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2025(SC) 568 has considered the law regarding abetment to suicide and Hon’ble Supreme Court criticized the casual approach of police in registering offences under Section 306 IPC . The judgment warned against mechanically charging individuals without proper investigation into whether the alleged acts constituted abetment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution’s case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days. 20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach. appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day- to-day realities of life. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day- to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of .” 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Singhal Vs The State of Uttarakhand ( 2023 INSC 1035 ) reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the person has no choice but to commit suicide. Court held that the incident which had allegedly driven the deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks prior and even the suicide note had been written three days prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide and further, there was no allegation that any act had been done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity to the date of suicide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to 29 instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits. 12. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to 29 instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits. 12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.” 14. In another case of Ayyub Vs State of Uttar Pradesh ( 2025 INSC 168 ) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court highlighted that there should be no other alternatives left for the deceased but to commit suicide for the alleged harassment to be considered as abetment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows-: “19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC , specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting . Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide”. 15. Same view was expressed earlier by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar VS State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in AIR 2002 (SC)1998 ; and held as under:- 11. 15. Same view was expressed earlier by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar VS State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in AIR 2002 (SC)1998 ; and held as under:- 11. In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 , this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said: "A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July, 1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased ’to go and die’. For this, the courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is annexed as annexure P-3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him ’to go and die’. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is annexed as annexure P-3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him ’to go and die’. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ’to go and die’, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of ’instigation’. The word ’instigate’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25th July, 1998 ensued by quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27th July, 1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25th July, 1998 drived the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27th July, 1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25th July, 1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27th July, 1998 would itself clearly pointed out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25th July, 1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below. 13. The next and most important material is the suicide note left by the deceased. The translated copy is annexed to this appeal as annexure P-1. It is extracted: 16. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. V. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835. Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 16. The translated copy is annexed to this appeal as annexure P-1. It is extracted: 16. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. V. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835. Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 16. This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential for abetment, as set out in Section 107 of the IPC . It observed as follows: “16. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” means “killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. ……….. 18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC . ………. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731: 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] In Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731: 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the allegations levelled were as under: (SCC p. 731, para 1) “1. … My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.” The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. ……….. 23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [ (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that:(SCC p. 90, para 17) “17. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. ……….. 23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [ (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that:(SCC p. 90, para 17) “17. … The court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it [appears] to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and 13 differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [ (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 25. 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 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. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this 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.” 17. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) and proximate link are two important aspects to attract the penal provisions of Section 306 of IPC . There must be a clear and demonstrable intention on the part of the accused to drive the victim to commit suicide. Mere harassment, verbal abuse, or general quarrels without specific intent is not enough. There must be a direct and proximate causal link between the accused's actions and the suicide. The act of abetment must be the immediate or compelling cause of the suicide, not a remote one. 18. If litigation is already pending between the parties regarding a property dispute, and during the pendency of such proceedings one of the parties unfortunately takes his own life, alleging that the ongoing disputes have caused him severe distress, the mere existence of such litigation cannot automatically be treated as instigation or abetment to suicide. This is especially so when the material on record indicates that the deceased was also grappling with multiple other personal, financial, or emotional difficulties. In these circumstances, even if the suicide note contains an expression such as “the accused has made my life hell,” such a statement, by itself, does not fulfill the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under the law. A general allegation arising out of strained relations or ongoing civil disputes cannot be equated with intentional instigation, provocation, or active aiding of suicide. The law requires a clear and proximate act of abetment, and in the absence of such specific evidence, criminal liability for abetment cannot be fastened merely on the basis of such remarks in the suicide note. 19. In the present case, it is evident that accused and deceased are from the same extended family and there is dispute between them on account of property left by father of the accused petitioner No. 1 for which civil suit is also going on. 19. In the present case, it is evident that accused and deceased are from the same extended family and there is dispute between them on account of property left by father of the accused petitioner No. 1 for which civil suit is also going on. So far the complaint submitted by the petitioner No.1 is concerned, it prima facie appears that some substance was found by the concerned SHO and thereafter, complaint was submitted before the executive magistrate praying to seek bonds from the complainant and the deceased to maintain peace. Mere alleging in suicide note that accused is responsible for the problems being faced by the deceased on account of litigation is in the opinion of this court not enough to bring the act of the accused within the ambit of abetment to suicide. Moreover, it should be noted that the date of filing of the complaint by petitioner No.1 is 19.07.2021 and the deceased committed suicide on 10.10.2021, which reflects a gap of around 3 months between the two incidents which further vitiates the link between both the incidents. Apart from this, it also appears from the suicide note that deceased was facing several other problems like dispute between parents, poor financial condition of family, employment related problem etc. It is also noteworthy that deceased had mentioned in the suicide note that he is suffering from depression and stress on account of family problems and dispute between his parents since childhood. 20. This unfortunate incident brings this Court’s attention to a plethora of studies which reflect that the risk of suicide is strongly linked to an individual's mental health status and can vary significantly from person to person. It is understood that risk factors are complex and often involve a combination of biological, psychological, social and environmental influences. A majority of people who commit suicide have an underlying mental health condition which can vary from person to person and could have been undiagnosed or untreated. It is also not necessary that each and every person will behave similarly in handling problematic situations and it depends on their state of mind. In the present case, the possibility that the deceased committed suicide due to being overwhelmed by family problems cannot be ruled out. 21. It is also not necessary that each and every person will behave similarly in handling problematic situations and it depends on their state of mind. In the present case, the possibility that the deceased committed suicide due to being overwhelmed by family problems cannot be ruled out. 21. In wake of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds that the contents mentioned in the impugned FIR do not make out that the petitioners herein had abetted the victim to commit suicide and deems it a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of it as continuance of proceedings of the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law. 22. Accordingly, the impugned FIR No. 312/2021, registered at Police Station Bhatta Basti, Jaipur City (North), for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of it, are hereby quashed. 23. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.