ORDER : S.R.Krishna Kumar, J. In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "i Call for entire records pertain to S.C.No.113/2024 pending on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge Court at Bangalore Rural. ii. Quash the entire criminal proceedings pending in S.C.No.113/2024 against the petitioners registered by the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under section 498(A), 306 of IPC , pending on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge Court at Bangalore Rural as abuse of process of law. iii. Pass appropriate order deems fit to the circumstances of the case on hand and to meet the interest of justice. 2. Though respondent No.2 is served, she has remained unrepresented. 3. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the petitioner is the husband of late Smt.Raziya Sulathana, who is none other than the daughter of respondent No.2. The said Raziya Sulthana is alleged to have committed suicide on 14.01.2024 pursuant to which respondent No.2-defacto complainant filed the instant complaint which is registered in FIR No.37/2024 against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC which is currently pending in SC No.113/2024 before the trial court. 4. In this context, it is necessary to extract the impugned complaint which reads as under: 5. The charge sheet which was filed in pursuance of the said complaint also would reiterate the very same allegations but the statement of witnesses do not indicate that aforesaid deceased Raziya Sulthana committed suicide due to instigation/incitement on the part of the petitioner as required in law in the absence of which, it cannot be said that petitioner is guilty of abetment of suicide as contemplated under Section 306 read with 107 of IPC . In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on two judgments of the Apex Court. 6. In the case of Ayub Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , [ 2025 INSC 168 ] it is held as under: "14. At the outset itself, we notice certain disturbing and peculiar features that obtain in this case. The first appellant who lost his son, lodged the first complaint on 02.11.2022 at 19:15 hrs. By the said time the body was in the mortuary. It transpires from the first information report lodged on 03.11.2022 at 17:07 hrs by the respondent no. At the outset itself, we notice certain disturbing and peculiar features that obtain in this case. The first appellant who lost his son, lodged the first complaint on 02.11.2022 at 19:15 hrs. By the said time the body was in the mortuary. It transpires from the first information report lodged on 03.11.2022 at 17:07 hrs by the respondent no. 2 that Tanu had committed suicide at around 10:30 am to 11:00 am on 02.11.2022. Regarding the death of Tanu, it was mentioned in the application for quash that the G.D. entry at the behest of the ward boy of the hospital was registered on 02.11.2022 at 01:14 pm. It was also mentioned that an inquest was held in the hospital on the said day. Admittedly, the post-mortem of Tanu was also held at 05:00 pm on 02.11.2022. However, the FIR came to be registered only on 03.11.2022 at 17:07 hrs. 15. It is intriguing that the police authorities, merely by recording the statements of the complainant Vijay, Sunesh W/o Janeshwar and Sushil who have simply parroted the contents of the FIR, proceeded to file the charge- sheet against the appellants. On our repeated queries to the counsel for the State as to whether any investigation to explore any other angle was pursued, we were met only with a stoic silence. 16. We are today left with the one sided version of the complainant R-2. Was there anything more sinister? Even if it was suicide what was the real cause? Was the deceased Tanu distraught with what happened to her friend Ziaul Rahman? Considering the under-currents and the disapproval of the relationship, was there any instigation for the suicide from any other quarter? Did the deceased Tanu resort to the extreme action of taking away her own life due to the ugly turn of the events and due to the fact that her family members were suspected to be involved? We have no answers today. Only an independent, thorough and comprehensive investigation will bring to light the true story. The charge-sheet, as it stands, appears to have proceeded in an unidimensional manner by accepting the version of the complainant (R-2) and his family members as the gospel truth. 17. We have no answers today. Only an independent, thorough and comprehensive investigation will bring to light the true story. The charge-sheet, as it stands, appears to have proceeded in an unidimensional manner by accepting the version of the complainant (R-2) and his family members as the gospel truth. 17. We find that based on the charge-sheet filed by the police on 02.05.2023 and the cryptic order of cognizance dated 17.06.2023, the proceedings cannot be allowed to be carried on against the appellants. Even taking the allegation on a demurrer, on the facts of the case, an offence under Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be made out against the appellants. The law on Section 306 IPC is well settled. 18. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another , (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and the deceased thereafter committed suicide. This Court held that :- “…. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite means rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events….” 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 IPC 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 Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another , (2010) 8 SCC 628 ]. 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 [See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal , (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M. Mohan vs. State , (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh , (2001) 9 SCC 618 ]. 20. 20. These principles have been reiterated recently by this Court in Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76 . 21. We find none of the ingredients required in law to make out a case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on record. The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased Tanu with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. The surrounding circumstances, particularly the prior lodgment of the FIR by the first appellant against the family of Tanu for the death of his son Ziaul Rahman, does indicate an element of desperation on the part of the respondent no. 2 to somehow implicate the appellants. Reliance of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. belatedly on 07.11.2022, 08.11.2022 and 22.11.2022, only reinforces out suspicion viz. one-sided, partial and inimical investigation. Under these circumstances, proceeding with the trial against the appellants in the charge-sheet as filed will be a gross abuse of process. 22. As pointed out earlier, the case has several disturbing features which call for a reinvestigation, which we propose to order based on the observations made hereinabove. The Director General of Police, Law and Order, State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by an officer of the level of Deputy Inspector General of Police to investigate the unnatural death of Tanu D/o Janeshwar R/o Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur. We authorize the Special Investigation Team to treat the first information report registered in crime no. 367 of 2022 at PS Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur as one of unnatural death. We further grant them liberty to re-register the FIR if they deem it appropriate. We direct that the reinvestigation report shall be placed before this Court in a sealed cover within a period of two months from today. 23. We make it clear that the observations in the present judgment are only for the purpose of quashing the proceedings against the appellants, and the reinvestigation on other aspects indicated above, will be carried out independently. We are not to be taken, to have expressed any view, one way or the other. 24. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. We are not to be taken, to have expressed any view, one way or the other. 24. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The proceedings in Case No. 2843 of 2023 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur (arising out of Crime No. 367 of 2022 Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur) are quashed. Let the matter be listed on 15.04.2025 for further directions and for consideration of the report of the Special Investigation Team." 7. In the case of Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , [ 2025 INSC 76 ] it is held as under: "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. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. They however seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC 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. 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 Section 306 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 Section 306 ." 8. As stated supra, a perusal of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, statement of witnesses, documents etc. would indicate that the commission of the alleged offence of abetment of suicide by the petitioner is conspicuously absent and not forthcoming form the material on record. It is further relevant to state that there is no material whatsoever to establish that the petitioner was guilty of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC also. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. , [ 2025 INSC 803 ] has held as under: "11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature. Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients of “cruelty” under section 498A IPC , as recently observed in the case of Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujaratand Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh . v. State of Gujaratand Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh . The Complainant has admittedly failed to produce any medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or any witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot ignore the fact that the Complainant 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 . even withdrew her second Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on 12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to substantiate the purported demand for dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his family and the investigative agencies in their own prudence have not added sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the chargesheet. 12. In this respect, the Sessions Court has applied its judicial mind to the allegations in the FIR & the material on record, and has rightly discharged the Appellants of the offences under section 498A & 34 IPC . Notwithstanding the said observation by the Sessions Court that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out, the discharge of the Appellant merely because the Complainant is a police officer is erroneous and reflects poorly on the judicial decision making, which must be strictly based on application of judicial principles to the merits of the case. On the other hand, the High Court vide the Impugned Order has traversed one step further and overtly emphasised that simply because the Complainant is a police officer, it cannot be assumed that she could not have been a victim of cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws. We agree with the sensitive approach adopted by the High Court in adjudicating the present case, however a judicial decision cannot be blurred to the actual facts and circumstances of a case. In this debate, it is only reasonable to re-iterate that the Sessions Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction and the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, must delve into the material on record to assess what the Complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in to. In the present case, such scrutiny of the allegations in the FIR and the material on record reveals that no prima facie is made out against the Appellant or his family. In the present case, such scrutiny of the allegations in the FIR and the material on record reveals that no prima facie is made out against the Appellant or his family. It is also borne from the record that the divorce decree of their marriage, has already been passed, and the same has never been challenged by the Complainant wife, and hence has attained finality. Upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and that the alleged incidents pertain to the year 1999 and since then the parties have moved on with their respective lives, it would be unjust and unfair if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial. 13. It is rather unfortunate that the Complainant being an officer of the State has initiated criminal machinery in such a manner, where the aged parents-in-law, five sisters and one tailor have been arrayed as an accused. Notwithstanding the possibility of truth behind the allegations of cruelty, this growing tendency to misuse legal provisions has time and again been condemned by this Court. The observations in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr., 2024 INSC 953 ." 10. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference in the present petition. 11. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed; (ii) The entire proceedings in S.C.No.113/2024 arising out of registration of FIR in Crime No.37/2024 registered by the 1st respondent – Police, pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 of IPC, are hereby quashed.