To sustain a charge of abetment to suicide, the prosecution must establish a proximate, live link between the accused’s alleged conduct and the victim’s death, driven by a clear, conscious mens rea. Absent such nexus or intentional instigation, continued prosecution constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The present application has been filed for the following reliefs:

"1. Allow this application;

2. Quash the impugned order dated 13.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Court No.14, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No.22 of 2015, Rahul Kushwaha v. Geeta Bainsla;

3. Quash the impugned order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.05, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.49 of 2012, Geeta Bainsla v. Rahul Kushwaha u/s 306, 354, 506 IPC, P.S. Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad;

4. Quash entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.49 of 2012, Geeta Bainsla v. Rahul Kushwaha u/s 306, 354, 506 IPC, P.S. Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.05, Ghaziabad;

5. Direct both the subordinate courts below to decide and dispose of the bail application of the petitioner on the same day;

6. Stay further proceedings of Complaint Case No.49 of 2012, Geeta Bainsla v. Rahul Kushwaha, u/s 306,354,506 IPC, P.S. Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of ACJM, Court No.05, Ghaziabad during the pendency of the present criminal misc. application before the Hon'ble Court;

7. Pass such order or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The factual matrix of the case is that Km. Jyoti was the minor daughter of the first informant, Smt. Geeta Baisla, and was studying in Class XI at TRM School Modi Nagar at the relevant time. It is alleged that the applicant, Rahul Kushwaha, who was employed therein as a teacher of Physics, had developed an improper and lustful interest in Km. Jyoti and, from time to time, made indecent gestures towards her and attempted to outrage her modesty, which conduct was resisted and protested by her.

3. It is further alleged that the applicant repeatedly pressurized Km. Jyoti to take private tuition from him, which she declined. Upon such refusal, he allegedly threatened that he would fail her in the examinations and would also have her family eliminated. It was further asserted that the applicant used to boast that his uncle, Babli @ Gyanchand, was a political leader and that his relative, Dabbu, was a notorious criminal who wielded terror in Modi Nagar.

4. According to the first informant, Km. Jyoti used to disclose these incidents to her mother, and the matter was also brought to the notice of the Principal of the aforesaid school. The Principal allegedly assured the family that no untoward incident would occur with Km. Jyoti. However, it is alleged that on account of the complaint having been made, the applicant developed animosity towards Km. Jyoti and threatened to fail her in the examination unless she submitted to his demands.

5. It is further alleged that on 25.03.2011, while Km. Jyoti was appearing in her examination, the applicant, despite not being assigned invigilation duty in that room, entered the examination hall, behaved indecently with her, snatched her answer-book, and threatened that unless she established contact with him, he would not allow her to pass the examination. He is also alleged to have used obscene language and issued threats. On account thereof, Km. Jyoti raised an alarm and telephonically informed the