JUDGMENT :

S. M. Modak, J.

The Applicants being the lenders of a loan transaction have approached this Court for quashing the criminal prosecution launched against them by Hudkeshwar Police Station, Nagpur. The criminal law was set in motion when Jugram Lanjewar committed suicide by hanging on 29th January, 2018 and when his wife Sunita Lanjewar decided to approach the police. Police got registered the offence under Section 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against these applicants on 7th February, 2018.

2. Applicants claim that deceased was heavily indebted and he committed suicide for his own wrongdoings and the criminal prosecution is the finest example of abuse of process of Court and they are asking for quashing of the proceedings. During investigation, the suicide note was sent to Handwriting Expert for comparison. Direction was given to produce the opinion. It was also produced. It suggests that the questioned handwriting was written by the person who wrote the specimen handwriting. On this background, we have heard learned Adv. Shri Akash Gupta at great length and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Shri Khan. Also heard Shri R. B. Upadhye for respondent no.2.

3. It is but natural for every litigant to expect a favourable verdict from the Court. In that zeal, there is a tendency to file plethora of judgments. In fact, the purpose can be achieved even by filing the judgments in which law has been interpreted for the first time. One can understand few more judgments are filed just to apprise the Court about the background in which criminal prosecutions for abetement of suicides are being initiated and quashed. But in this case, the applicants have filed in as many as ten judgments. It is but natural for the prosecution and the original first informant to file few judgments. They are as follows :-

Judgments filed by the Applicants :

[a] Suhas Vs. State of Maharashtra [2017 SCC OnLine Bom 304],

[b] Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371],

[c] Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. & another [2017 ALLMR (Cri) 2966],

[d] M. Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [(2011) 3 SCC 626],

[e] S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & another [(2010) 12 SCC 190],

[f] Satish Narayan Ate Vs. State of Maharashtra [1997 Cri. L.J. 935],

[g] Girish Sanjay Bole Vs. State of Mah. [2012 ALLMR (Cri.) 3863],

[h] Digambar Bhujan Kamble Vs. The State of Mah. & others [2012 ALLMR (Cri) 2536],

[i] Dilip Ramrao Shirasao & others Vs. State of Mah. & another [2016 ALLMR (Cri) 4328],

[j] Vijay Vs. State of Mah. [2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1012],

Judgment filed by the prosecution :

Didigam Bikshapathi & another Vs. State of A.P. [2008 Cri. L. J. 724].

Judgments cited by respondent no.2 :

[a] Baban Shripati Gaikwad & others Vs. The State of Mah. & another [2017 ALLMR (Cri) 3960], and

[b] Ravindra Bhimrao Khillare & others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & another [2017 ALLMR (Cri) 2966].

4. We do not want to leave open the grievance that the Court has not read those judgments, we have undertaken that exercise of reading all the judgments. We have bifurcated those judgments into two categories. One category is set of judgments in which the law has been interpreted and second category is those judgments in which law already interpreted is reiterated.

SCOPE OF POWER

5. Basically, we have to deal with two issues. One is the scope of power of quashing and second is whether it can be exercised in the present set of facts. One need not dwell upon the issue of power of the High Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. The law on this subject is well settled. As back as in the year 1960, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] had occasion to deal with this issue. Three parameters were laid down. Similarly, in the year 1992 while dealing with a person involving a political personality, Hon'ble Supreme Court again dealt with the similar issue. Seven parameters were laid down