The main legal point established in the judgment is that if co-accused are acquitted on the basis of testimony of the same prosecution witnesses, the applicant may also be discharged. Additionally, the judgment emphasized the need for an active role in abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

Neeraj Tiwari, J.

Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Narsingh Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing charge sheet dated 27.08.2005 and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.668 of 2006 (State Vs. Nirmal & Others), under Sections 306, 506 IPC, Police Station- Najibabad, District- Bijnor and including the order of cognizance dated 03.05.2006.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that frivolous FIR has been lodged on 17.05.2005 by the opposite party no.2 against the three persons, namely, Sardar Nirmal Singh, Dr. Ram Gopal & Pradeep Kumar-applicant and in the FIR and there is no direct allegation against the applicant. Ultimately trial was concluded with regard to co-accused Sardar Nirmal Singh and Ram Gopal and they have been acquitted by the Court below vide orders dated 30.7.2012 & 1.7.2009 and both the prosecution witnesses were declared hostile. In their statement recorded before the trial Court, both the witnesses have clearly stated that they have not seen that his father has taken loan from the Sardar Nirmal Singh & applicant and on the basis of information received from nearby persons, they have mentioned the name of applicant along with other co-accused.

4. He further submitted that as per settled provision of law, if the allegation and prosecution witnesses are same and co-accused are acquitted on the basis of testimony of the same prosecution witnesses, applicant may also be discharged and he cannot be punished. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Diwan Singh vs. State, (1964) Lawsuit(All) 182, D.K. Agarwal Vs. State of U.P decided on 15.9.2016 and Aagoshe Iram vs. State of U.P. & Another, (2017) Lawsuit(All) 1546 in which criminal proceeding was quashed and accused were discharged on the ground of acquittal of co-accused, which are having the same allegation and same prosecution witnesses.

5. He also placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 5779 of 1999, (Begum & Others vs. State of U.P. & Ors) decided on 15.07.2005, 13760 of 2005 (Zahrun Nisa vs. State of U.P. & Ors) decided on 22.09.2005 and 15521 of 2005 (Darshan Singh and Ors vs. State of U.P) decided on 24.10.2005 in which too, Court has quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground of acquittal of co-accused on the same set of witnesses.

6. He also argued his case on merits and submitted that even on merit no case of abetment of suicide is made out against the applicant as there is only allegation of demanding his money back, which was taken by the deceased as loan. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rajesh vs. State of Haryana decided on 18th January, 2019 and submitted that as per Section 306 IPC, person who is alleged for abetment must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. He further submitted that even in the FIR, there is only allegation of physical and mental torture of deceased for demanding his money back, which was also denied by the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court in the matter of co-accused, namely, Sardar Nirmal Singh and Ram Gopal.

7. He further submitted that even opposite party no.2 has also filed supplementary affidavit before this Court and stated that opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute any criminal proceeding against the applicant.

8. Mr. Narsingh Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has supported the case of applicant so far as facts are concerned and further submitted that after recording the statement of deponent as well as his brother, trial Court has acquitted both the accused from the charges framed against them. He further submitted that witnesses are same and deponent does not want to prosecute the applic