JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR No. 192/2022 dated 8 th June 2022, registered at Police Station Una for the commission of offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that her sister, Guddi alias Sapna (since deceased), was serving in a private company at Baddi. Reena Thakur resided near the room of Guddi in the same vicinity. Reena told the informant that petitioner No.1 Arman came to Guddi’s room on 4 th June 2022 at 10:30. Petitioner No.1 and Guddi went to the Gurudwara on 5 th June 2022. Armaan left the room of Guddi on 6 th June 2022. He called Guddi and asked her to visit Una to meet his mother, the petitioner No.2 Rakesh Kumari, to discuss the marriage between Armaan and Guddi. Guddi left for Una on 7 th June 2022. She informed Reena that she was going to meet Armaan and his mother. The matter regarding the marriage between Guddi and Armaan was discussed at Una. Guddi told the informant that she was sitting in a Midpoint Hotel and Restaurant, where Rakesh Kumari, the mother of Armaan, abused and blamed her. Armaan also refused to marry her. Guddi committed suicide due to the abuses of Rakesh Kumari and the refusal by Armaan to marry her. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police collected call detail records and found that Armaan and Guddi were in touch with each other. The report of analysis shows that phosphine gas was detected in the viscera of Guddi. The postmortem report shows that the cause of death was phosphide poisoning. The police arrested Armaan and his mother and filed the chargesheet before the court. The matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 20 th and 21 st November 2024. Statements of ten out of eighteen witnesses have been recorded; hence, the status report. 3. The postmortem report shows that the cause of death was phosphide poisoning. The police arrested Armaan and his mother and filed the chargesheet before the court. The matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 20 th and 21 st November 2024. Statements of ten out of eighteen witnesses have been recorded; hence, the status report. 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and continuation of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, the petitioners have filed the present petition, asserting that they cannot be held responsible for the death of Guddi. There is no evidence against the petitioners, and there is every possibility of the acquittal of the petitioners. The continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The prosecution did not collect any cogent evidence against the petitioners. Mere allegations that Armaan had refused to marry Guddi and that his mother had abused her are not sufficient. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court be quashed. 4. I have heard Mr. Virender Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents 1 to 3, and Mr Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 4. 5. Mr. Virender Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that there is no cogent evidence against the petitioners to connect them with the commission of a crime. Mere refusal to marry does not amount to an abetment to commit suicide. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2012 decided on 29 th November 2024 , in support of his submission. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the contents of the FIR show that petitioner Rakesh Kumari had abused Guddi, who committed suicide in the restaurant where she was talking to the petitioners. The police found sufficient material to file a chargesheet before the Court. The learned Trial Court has framed charges. The petitioners have not filed any revision assailing the order framing the charges, and the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC is not maintainable. He prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. Mr. The police found sufficient material to file a chargesheet before the Court. The learned Trial Court has framed charges. The petitioners have not filed any revision assailing the order framing the charges, and the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC is not maintainable. He prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4/informant, adopted the submissions of Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, and submitted that this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings when the competent Court has framed the charges against the petitioners. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully 9. The law relating to quashing of FIR was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P. , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: - “7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarized some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (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 to spite him due to a private and personal grudge.” (emphasis added) 8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case. In clause (1) it has been mentioned that 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, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed. In clause (1) it has been mentioned that 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, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed. As per clause (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 dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed. Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be quashed.” 10. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185 , wherein it was observed: “8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice. 9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby preempting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. 9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby preempting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : ( i ) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably ( State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) 11. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The status report shows that the learned Trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioners. It was laid down in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1181 that once the competent Court has framed the charges, the person aggrieved may invoke the revisional jurisdiction, and the High Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., except in the rare cases. It was observed on page 145: - “7. If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240 CrPC on a finding that a prima facie case has been made out - as has been done in the instant case - the person arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Judge to contend that the charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 CrPC and documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for which he is charged and the revisional court if so satisfied can quash the charges framed against him. To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC the High Court In its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. The photocopy of the charge sheet shows that the police have recorded the statement of Gurmeet Saini, owner of Midpoint Restaurant, who stated that Guddi was talking to the petitioners in the restaurant. She went to the toilet and started vomiting soon after. Guddi had consumed poison in the toilet. A similar statement was made by Ravi Sharma, a waiter in the restaurant. These statements clearly corroborate the testimony of the informant that the petitioners had abused Guddi, which caused her to commit suicide. 14. In Kamaruddin (supra), the deceased had consumed poison after waiting for one night at the bus stand. Kamarudeen had only refused to marry her, and this was held to be insufficient to amount to abetment. In the present case, the petitioners abused and blamed Guddi; she committed suicide in the restaurant where she was sitting with the petitioners. This shows the proximity between the suicide and the acts of the petitioners. Therefore, the cited judgment will not help the petitioners. 15. It was submitted that there is insufficient material to convict the petitioners. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Maroti , (2023) 4 SCC 298 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1503 that the High Court exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot examine the truthfulness, sufficiency and admissibility of the evidence. It was observed: 21. If FIR and the materials collected disclose a cognizable offence and the final report filed under Section 173(2)CrPC on completion of investigation based on it would reveal that the ingredients to constitute an offence under the POCSO Act and a prima facie case against the persons named therein as accused, the truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not matters falling within the purview of exercise of power under Section 482CrPC and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the trial court at the time of trial. This position is evident from the decisions referred to supra. 22. This position is evident from the decisions referred to supra. 22. In the decision in M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita, ( 2023) 12 SCC 821: 2002 SCC OnLine SC 1300 : JT (2002) 3 SC 89 , this Court held that while considering the question of quashing of FIR the High Court would not be entitled to appreciate by way of sifting the materials collected in course of investigation including the statements recorded under Section 161CrPC. 23. In the decision in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 51 , a two-judge Bench of this Court dealt with the question as to the matters that could be considered by the High Court in quashment proceedings under Section 482CrPC. It was held therein that statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161CrPC, being wholly inadmissible in evidence, could not be taken into consideration by the Court while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482CrPC. In that case, this Court took note of the fact that the High Court was aware that one of the witnesses mentioned that the deceased victim had informed him about the harassment by the accused, which she was not able to bear and hence wanted to commit suicide. Finding that the conclusion of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings, in that case, was on the basis of its assessment of the statements recorded under Section 161CrPC, it was held that statements thereunder, being wholly inadmissible in evidence could not have been taken into consideration by the Court while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482CrPC. It was also held that the High Court committed an error in quashing the proceedings by assessing the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.” 16. Therefore, it is impermissible to quash the FIR and the proceedings on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. 17. It was submitted that the allegations in the FIR are false. This submission cannot be adjudicated at this stage. This Court cannot determine the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations because it is a matter of trial to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court where the matter is pending. This position was laid down in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643 wherein it was held: - “13. This Court cannot determine the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations because it is a matter of trial to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court where the matter is pending. This position was laid down in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643 wherein it was held: - “13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at their face value, must disclose the commission of an offence and make out a case against the accused. At the cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused. We are of the considered view that the present case would fall under Category-3 of the categories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) 14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home, (2019) 11 SCC 706 : 2018 INSC 1060: “ 14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge sheet is filed, the petition for quashing of the FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23 . In Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23, this Court while deciding the question of whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR when the charge- sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16) “16. Thus, the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [ Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365 ] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not.” 18. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1894 that the Court cannot conduct a mini- trial while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC. It was observed at page 397: “17. This Court, in a series of judgments, has held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code , 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini-trial. A profitable reference can be made to the judgment in CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 . The relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted hereunder: (SCC paras 6-7) 6. … As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. … 7. … At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider ‘whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not’.” 19. Hence, it is not permissible for the Court to go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. 20. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The learned Trial Court is seized of the matter. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P. , (2023) 8 SCC 734 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 that when the charge sheet has been filed, the learned Trial Court should be left to appreciate the same. The learned Trial Court is seized of the matter. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P. , (2023) 8 SCC 734 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 that when the charge sheet has been filed, the learned Trial Court should be left to appreciate the same. It was observed: “At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence, particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences, we are of the view that the appellants should prefer a discharge application before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over and the charge sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. In such circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials which the investigating officer might have collected forming part of the charge sheet. If any such discharge application is filed, the trial court shall look into the materials and take a call whether any discharge case is made out or not.” 21. No other point was urged. 22. Consequently, the present petition fails and is dismissed. 23. The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.