Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Ramgarh P.S case no.23 of 2011 (S.T.No.78 of 2013) including the order dated 2.1.2013 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.

3. Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is the case of the prosecution that daughter of petitioner no.1 got married with the son of the informant in the year 1999. Out of their wedlock, one male child was born in the year 2001. On 19.7.2005, daughter of petitioner no.1, Aarti Devi died while she was in her in-laws' place and for that, U.D case was lodged by the petitioner no.1. Subsequently, petitioner no.1 lodged another case which was registered under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Since wife of the informant's son had died, son of the informant took another marriage in the year 2006.

4. Further case is that on 25.12.2010, FSL report was received reporting therein that viscera was containing some poison. Thereupon on 2.2.2011 informant's son committed suicide along with his second wife and daughter. On the same day i.e, 2.2.2011, FIR was lodged which was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Further case of the prosecution is that when the case commenced, accused persons (petitioners) started putting forth the demand and therefore, Panchayati was convened wherein it was decided that the petitioners will be compromising the case upon payment of Rs.1,50,000/- which was allegedly paid to the petitioners but in spite of receiving money, the petitioners did not go for compromise, rather further demand came from the side of the petitioners of Rs.5 lac more. When it was not paid, it is alleged that the accused persons started holding threat to the effect that if that amount is not given, they will make the life of informant hell. Since constant threatening was being given on telephone, informant's son committed suicide along with wife and children and thereby a case was lodged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Upon submission of the charge sheet, when cognizance of the offence was taken, vide order dated 2.1.2013, that was challenged before this Court.

7. Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that accepting the entire allegations of not compromising the case in spite of receiving money and of further demand and then holding out threat for creating lots of problem are accepted to be true, those acts cannot be said to be direct or active act on the part of the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide and that even if those threats had been held out, that never indicates that the petitioners had had any mens rea to commit offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. In this respect, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has referred to a decision rendered in a case of M. Mohan vs. State Represented By the Deputy Superintendent of Police [(2011) 3 SCC 626].

9. Thus, it was submitted that the court committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence and thereby the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside.

10. As against this, Mr.Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that there has been specific allegation that the accused persons took a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-on the pretext that they would go for compromise but instead of compromising the case, the accused persons started demanding further Rs.5 lac. When it was not paid, the accused persons started holding out threat constantly on telephone that they will make their life hell which made the deceased so perturbed that he along with wife and daughter committed suicide and thereby the act of the petitioners can certainly be s