1. On 18.07.2015, sometime before 10.30 a.m., one Chander Shekhar son of Dharampal Singh, aged about 31 years, resident of Mohan Garden, New Delhi was run over by a railway train at a place between railway stations of Shahbad Mohammadpur and Bijwasan, the death statedly being found to be suicidal. First information report (FIR) no.215/15 was registered on 23.08.2015 by police station Sarai Rohilla Railway Station for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at the instance of Rajnath Singh, brother of the deceased. The police, having concluded the investigation, submitted report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) dated 12.04.2016, followed by supplementary report dated 10.11.2016, with the conclusion that sufficient evidence had not come up against the persons whose complicity in the crime had been alleged.

2. The Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order dated 03.12.2016, did not agree with the abovesaid conclusion and was of the view that prima facie the deceased person had been “deliberately harassed” and “driven to suicide”, the petitioners herein having “deliberately created a situation which left no other option for the deceased but to take his own life” and, on the basis of such impression, took cognizance of the offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC and summoned the petitioners as accused.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the abovesaid order, the petitioners have come up to this court by the petition at hand invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC contending that the order of the Magistrate is perverse, not taking into consideration the facts and circumstances that had been brought to light during investigation, having adopted an approach which was against the settled law vis-à-vis the offence of abetment of suicide and consequently being in the nature of abuse of the process of law.

4. The petition has been resisted by the second respondent (first informant), the State through the Additional Public Prosecutor having taken a neutral stand, leaving the matter to the wisdom, judicial discretion and judgment of the court.

5. The background facts which are substantially not in dispute or which are supported by substantive evidence gathered during investigation and, therefore, irrefutable may be taken note of at this stage.

6. The first to third petitioners are brothers to each other, each of them in their mid-sixties, the fourth petitioner being the son of the first petitioner, all of them being residents of a house in West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. They together are engaged in business run in the name and style of Laxmi Float Glass Ltd. with office at A-2/10, WHS, DDA Marble Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioners being the proprietors of the said business would also visit the said office at Kirti Nagar. Chander Shekhar (the deceased) was working as an employee in the said business, under the petitioners, for more than a decade, statedly in the capacity of a salesman, his responsibilities relating to sales made by the company in various cities or towns of Haryana. Rajnath Singh (the first informant / complainant), the elder brother of the deceased, had also been similarly engaged as a salesman by the said company of the petitioners with office at Kirti Nagar. It appears the company deals in trading of glass and the salesmen were also responsible to ensure the recovery of dues against the sales to other dealers, it being inherent in the said arrangement that the salesman would account for the monies realized from the purchasing dealers.

7. It is alleged by the complainant himself in the FIR that a dispute had arisen between the deceased (employee), on one hand, and the petitioners (employers), on the other, about accounting of certain amount(s) of money which statedly had been collected by the former (deceased) from various dealers. It is also stated by the complainant himself, and his word is echoed (in his statement) by s