FIR quashed for abetment to suicide where suicide note's authorship unproven by forensics and no independent evidence of instigation or proximate nexus, preventing abuse of process despite final report.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. These four matters, though separately numbered and instituted under different statutory provisions, arise out of the same First Information Report dated 24.05.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, and therefore have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. WPCRL No. 562 of 2024 and WPCRL No. 570 of 2024 have been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR and the consequential investigation. C-482 No. 1120 of 2024 and C-482 No. 1121 of 2024 have been instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of the same FIR and subsequent actions taken during investigation.

3. The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR is that the acts and conduct attributed to the Applicants allegedly drove the deceased to commit suicide, thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The State’s case is primarily founded upon a purported suicide note, which is stated to implicate the Applicants.

4. During the course of investigation, and as reflected from the remand proceedings dated 01.06.2024, additional penal provisions, namely Sections 385, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, were also incorporated. The Applicants were remanded to custody, and investigation proceeded on the said basis.

5. Since the factual foundation, the FIR, the parties involved, and the legal issues arising for consideration are common, these proceedings were directed to be listed together and were heard analogously from time to time.

6. A central issue that emerged during the pendency of these matters was the authenticity and evidentiary value of the alleged suicide note. In view thereof, this Court, by specific judicial orders, summoned the Investigating Officer to clarify the status of forensic examination pertaining to the handwriting of the deceased.

7. The Investigating Officer placed on record that the suicide note had been sent for forensic examination; however, the Forensic Science Laboratory was unable to arrive at a conclusive opinion regarding authorship due to certain anomalies. It was further stated that efforts were made to obtain cooperation from the son of the deceased for comparative handwriting samples, but the same did not materialize.

8. Throughout the pendency of the proceedings, this Court monitored the progress of investigation and repeatedly called for progress reports, including DVR and CDR reports, while balancing the rights of the Applicants as well as the concerns raised on behalf of the complainant regarding the pace and manner of investigation.

9. Learned State counsel ultimately made a statement before this Court that the final report had been submitted in the matter. Thereafter, arguments were heard at length in all the connected cases.

10. Since all four proceedings emanate from the same FIR, involve identical factual allegations, overlapping legal issues, and common questions of law, they are being decided by this common judgment.

11. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in WPCRL Nos. 562 and 570 of 2024 and learned counsel for the Applicants in