Judgment :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Petitioners herein have sought for quashing of proceeding being GR Case no. 3892 of 2022 presently pending before learned Sessions Judge, Barasat under section 306/506/34 of the IPC.

2. Petitioners’ case is that deceased Arijit Samaddar had married petitioner no. 1 herein on 01.12.2021. Petitioner no. 2 is the father of the petitioner no.1. Their further case is that soon after the marriage the petitioner no.1 discovered that her husband had epidermoid cysts covering both his scrotums, which he did not disclose to the petitioner no.1 prior to that marriage. She time and again requested her husband to consult physicians in order to have the said disease medically treated and cured. But the deceased was indifferent and refused to consult any doctor and on the contrary he used to ask the petitioner to leave her matrimonial home. Finding no other alternative the petitioner no.1 was constrained to leave her matrimonial home in the month of February, 2022 mainly due to indifferent attitude of her husband, though she had not initiated any litigation against her husband

3. Further case of the petitioners is that on 2nd July, 2022 petitioner no.1 went to her matrimonial home but her husband/deceased refused to reconcile and as such she left her matrimonial home along with her belongings on that very day. Therefore, after 2nd July 2022, the petitioner no.1 had no occasion to either physically meet or to speak to her husband. Unfortunately said husband of petitioner no.1 committed suicide on 19.09.2022 at his own residence

4. Opposite Party (in short OP) No.2 then lodged the instant FIR, alleging interalia that on 18.02.2022 the petitioner no.1 herein left her matrimonial home along with 5/6 bags and at that time the son of op No.2 namely deceased Arijit Samadder requested the petitioner to come back. However she informed that she was unwilling to resume matrimonial tie with him. On 02.07.2022 the petitioner no.1 along with her father, uncle and friend had come to her matrimonial home and brought back her articles and also gave an acknowledgement receipt in her own hand writing. On 19.9.2022 said Arijit Committed suicide by hanging. After returning home defacto complainant found a diary wherein deceased had written that the petitioner no.1 and her relations are responsible for the death.

5. Being aggrieved by instant proceeding learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gangully submits that from a bare perusal of suicide note of the deceased and seizure list and the handwriting expert’s report dated 02.12.2022, it appears that even if such alleged suicide note is taken to be uncontroverted, the same does not make out any case of abatement to suicide. Infact the version of the Opposite Party in the impugned FIR that in the suicide note the deceased had held the petitioners responsible for his death, has been proved to be incorrect and malicious.

6. He further argued that from the FIR itself it is clear that the petitioner no.1 left her matrimonial home in February, 2022. Thereafter she went back to her matrimonial home on 02.07.2022, when she had to execute a receipt in writing while taking back some of her articles. Thus, after 02.07.2022 the petitioner no.1 had no occasion to either physically meet or spoke to her husband Arijit Samadder, who committed suicide two and half months thereafter i.e. on 19.09.2022 at his own residence where his parents namely the OP no.2 herein and his wife were only present. Therefore there is no live link and/or proximity of any act or omission of the petitioners with the purported suicide on 19.09.2022.

7. He further argued that nowhere in the FIR, charge sheet or the materials on record, it discloses any positive act or conduct of the petitioner which might have compelled the deceased to commit suicide. To constitute the offence of abetment as specified under section 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability.