The main legal point established is that for abetment of suicide, there must be a direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide, and the accused's actions must have led the victim to commit suicide with no other option.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of the First Information Report being Hasnabad P.S. Case No.355 of 2009 dated 26/11/2009 under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Genesis of the case is the written complaint dated 26/11/2009 written by the Opposite Party No.2/de-facto complainant addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Hasnabad Police Station. It is the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 that his younger daughter, Ankita Halder, was a student of Barunhat High School. In the course of Madhyamik test examination on geography, the Petitioner herein rebuked and humiliated the said Ankita. She came back to home and narrated the incident to her parents. Later in absence of her father, Opposite Party No. 2, in the residence, she committed suicide by hanging herself. With heavy heart the Opposite Party No.2 submitted the written complaint in Hasnabad Police Station. On the basis of the written complaint, formal F.I.R was drawn up and numbered as Hasnabad P.S. Case No. 355 of 2009 dated 26/11/2009 under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that on the day of the examination of geography, as mentioned in the written complaint, the Petitioner was one of the invigilators. Hefound that the deceased Ankita was copying her answers from a piece of paper which she brought before entering into the examination hall. The Petitioner objected to that act and took her answer sheet along with the piece of paper and submitted the same to the Principal of the institution with a note. The Petitioner did the aforesaid act in discharge of his official duty without any intention to instigate or to provoke the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the Petitioner filed the instant application praying for quashing of the unjustified prosecution.

4. Mr. Mondal, appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that to constitute offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Anything short of these requirements would nullify the charge of abetment. In the instant case, the Petitioner was invigilator in the examination hall. The deceased was indulged in unfair practice which, the Petitioner, in discharge of his official duty and as a part of disciplinary measure, resisted. Under no circumstance such an act of the Petitioner can be said to abet or to instigate committing suicide. A prosecution like the instant one would not only discourage the Petitioner but also all the invigilators to discharge the task of invigilation in proper and fearless manner. The ingredients of abetments are altogether absent in this case. Mr.

5. Mondal explained the principle of law with reference to the following cases:

Annakali Dutta & Ors. vs. the State [1990 SCC Online, Cal 80],

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

Subha Narayan vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. [(2006) 3 CHN 651],

Bishnu Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal [2007 (3) CHN 754],

Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat [(2010)8 SCC 628]

Sri Swapan Roy vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. [2016 SCC Online Cal 1790]

State of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu [(2019) 10 SCC 188]

Geo Verghese vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2021 SCC Online SC 873].

6. In nutshell, Mr. Mondal prayed for quashing of the impugned F.I.R.

7. Per contra Mr. Mahato appearing for the State submitted that statement of the students, recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure who were present on the spot, reveal that the deceased was rebuked, chastised and insulted by the Petitioner for her act of copying. This caused mental stress and trauma goading her to commit suicide. According to Mr. Mahato, there are incriminating elements. The F.I.R, on the face of it, reveals commission of the alleged offence which does not warrant quashing of the F.I.R. According to him, the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

8.