K.U. Chandiwal, J.

1. Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Both the applications are heard together as they raise common question of quashing FIR vide Crime No.I-29/2010, registered at Rahuri Police Station, district Ahmednagar.

2. Prashant, aged 22 years, was a student of IInd year L.L.B. Course (Three years' Law degree course after graduation) at Ferguson College Hostel. Unfortunate suicide of Prashant on 25th Jan., 2010, at his relative's place at Khadambe, Taluka Rahata, district Ahmednagar, made his father ( a police officer) to lodge FIR implicating the applicants who were studying in the College or were in the hostel at the relevant time.

3. In the FIR, complainant Bandu says that in December 2009, his son Prashant had been to abode but seen depressed; he informed his father that (1) Sudarshan Shelke, 2) Chetan Mahale, 3) Sharad Lande, 4) Rohan Belve and five / ten other students were torturing him on different pretext. He conveyed to his father that he desired to study at home. Complainant says, whenever his son Prashant was at abode, he used to receive phone calls from his friends at the college and, even on phone, they used to humiliate him. Prashant did not respond to complainant's query and used to delete such calls. On 2nd January, 2010, at 7 a.m., Prashant attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison. He was relieved of danger at hospital. Thereafter, unfortunate, event of committing suicide on 25th Jan., 2010, has taken place.

4. We quite see, the complainant was jittery; he was crumbled. He has lost even logic, however, at the same time, we are consciously guided by his vocation; a police officer, who has to maintain mental equilibrium in all stages. After sad demise suicide of Prashant, when inquest was drawn, owing to accidental death, in pursuance to Section 174 Cr.P.C., there was no whisper of doubt; any allegation to have pre-emptive action against the culprits. The sad demise of Prashant is ornamented to implicate applicants. Complainant was quite conscious on 2nd Jan., 2010, of aborted attempt where complainant revealed names of culprits. This should have been an added phenomenon for the complainant to immediately lodge report of protest or grievance at the college against students. He did not avail the rational opportunity; it smacks of his bona fides.

5. Mr. Karpe, learned Counsel for the complainant says, father i.e. the complainant resides 122 kms away from Pune, where the deceased was staying. He had no reason to name few of the students. The FIR being at a preliminary stage, warrants investigation and ingredients of the offense primarily are seen spelt out in the FIR. The report of the fact finding committee to which reference is given by the learned Counsel for the accused / applicant, according to Mr. Karpe, should not weigh while dealing with application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. The legal position in respect of exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is spelt out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court flowing from judgment in the matter of R.P.KapurVs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 862). It was again elaborately explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (AIR 1992 SC 604), G.Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2002) 2 SCC 636), and in the matter of InderMohan Goswami & Another vsState Of Uttaranchal & Others, three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 251. The sum total of the observations can be culled out this way: where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value makes out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose essential ingredients of an offense which are alleged against the accused, there is no inhibition for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The criteria explained by the Hon'ble Supreme in the matter of Ch.Bhajanlal, also fits to the present case, particularly clause No.7 thereof. In the matter of Inder