JUDGMENT

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. - This petition is preferred under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the F.I.R.(Annexure P-1) Registered at police Station Civil Lines, vide Crime No. 31/2020, dated 16th of January, 2020 for commission of offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. As per version of the petitioners, name of the deceased is Santosh Kaushik who was working in the house of the petitioners from last five years as care-taker alongwith many other employees. One silver article was missing from the house that is why petitioner No.2. Amit Ashwarya Jogi made general query from all the employees of the house around 10th of January, 2020 thereafter, both the petitioners went Raipur on 13th of January, 2020 and on 15th of January, 2020 deceased Santosh Kaushik committed suicide by hanging himself. In the garage of the petitioners house. On 16th of January, 2020. Brother of the deceased made written complaint in the police station that he has suspicion that because of torture of petitioners, his brother committed suicide. On the basis of said complaint of brother of the deceased the F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Civil Lines vide Crime No. 31/2020 for commission of offence under Section 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. The Police has registered the complaint without ascertaining the cause of suicide therefore, registration of F.I.R. against the petitioners amounts to abuse of due process of law and only because of extraneous political consideration F.I.R. has been registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the date of incident the petitioners were not present at Bilaspur therefore, no question of giving any physical torture or inducement arise in the present case. Many other employees are also working in the house and none of them made any complaint that deceased or they were tortured by the petitioners regarding stolen of silver article. Even in the written complaint brother of deceased only raised suspicion therefore, 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 petitioners. The allegations and materials do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code. The allegations made in the report was 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 petitioners. For constituting the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. there has to be an act of abetment as defined in Section 107 of I.P.C. There is no evidence on record to show that deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. For the reason that initiation of criminal proceedings are abuse of process of law therefore, said F.I.R. be quashed in the interest of justice. He placed reliance in the matters of State of Haryana and Others Versus Bhajan lal and Others, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335 ; Mahendra Singh Gaytribai and Another Versus State of M.P.,1995 Supp SCC 731 ; Gangula Mohan Reddy Versus State of Chhattisgarhm, 2010 1 SCC 750 & Praveen Pradhan Versus State of Uttaranchal and Another, 2012 9 SCC 734 .

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that there is prima facie evidence against the petitioners regarding constant torture and threatening of physical violence against the deceased. He was confined in the house of the petitioner and committed suicide in their house. All the aspects required investigation and investigation is at initial stage therefore, it is not a case where interference of this Court is required with the investigation in question.

5. He placed reliance in the matter of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Versus State (Govenment of NCT of Delhi), 2009 16 SCC 605 ; Praveen Pradhan Versus State of Uttaranchal and Another, 2012 9 SCC 734 & Munshiram versus State of Rajasthan and Another,