The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court should not delve deep into the merit of the case or assume the jurisdiction of the trial court while considering the quashing of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Madhumati Mitra, J.

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioners/accused praying for quashing of the proceedings of G.R.Case No.680 of 2014 arising out of Chandrakona Police Station Case No.323 of 2014 dated 10.10.2014 pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur.

2. The facts which are necessary to dispose of the present application are recapitulated as under:-

3. The present opposite party no.2 on 10.10.2014 at about 15:15 hours lodged an FIR with Chandrakona Police Station alleging that his father Suresh Bera left his residence on 09.10.2014 at about 8:00 p.m. for marketing, but he did not come back to his residence. Opposite party no.2 i.e the complainant and his elder brother viz Santanu Bera left their residence to find out their father. At about 00:30 hours (10.10.2014) they found that their father was lying in senseless condition in front of Aloka Cold storage. Getting no response from their father they understood that their father had committed suicide. Subsequently they found three suicide notes from the pocket of the deceased where from they came to know that their father committed suicide as he was pressurized and instigated to commit suicide. In his FIR the complainant/opposite party no.2 specifically mentioned, that in his suicide notes his father had described how he was pressurized and instigated. He also mentioned the names of the persons in the First Information Report who caused such pressurization and instigation.

4. On the basis of the FIR lodged by present opposite party no.2, Chandrakona Police Station Case No.323/2014 dated 10.10.2014 was started against the FIR named persons whose names had been mentioned in the alleged suicide notes of the deceased which were subsequently discovered by the de facto complainant from the pocket of the deceased.

5. The investigation ended in submission of charge-sheet against the present petitioners along with others for commission of alleged offence under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be better to deal with the offence alleged in the First Information Report as well as in the charge-sheet. The offence alleged is that of 'abetment of suicide'. For convenience sake Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as below:

"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".

7. In this connection it would not be out of place to mention Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:-

"A person abets the doing of a thing, who first, 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 or in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing".

8. On the other hand, it is the settled principle of law that in order to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the contents of the First Information Report shall have to be examined and the High Court at that stage has no jurisdiction to go into the merit or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the First Information Report shall be taken into consideration to see whether the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or the statements of the witnesses in support of the same taken of their face value make out any offence as alleged against the petitioners/accused.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has vigorously submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant criminal proceedings and there was no ground whatsoever for implicating them in the