ORDER

With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, the petition was heard finally and today the order is being pronounced.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered at Police Station Subahpur, District Satna vide Crime No.120/2022 on the fulcrum of a complaint made by respondent No.2 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Succinct portrayal of facts is that deceased Asha Tiwari and the petitioners are members of one family. Sachinand Tiwari had four offspring. Elder one was Rajman, then Radhika, Ramkishore and Ramkendra, who are residing separately for around 35 years. Sachinand Tiwari gave 3.75 acres of land to each of them and kept 4.10 acre for himself. Ramkishore was residing in a house which situates on the land of Sachinand Tiwari. The relation among Sanchinand Tiwari and his four sons turned estranged. Sachinand Tiwari residing separately with his wife because all four sons used to fight with him and neither they cultivated their land nor allowed Sachinand Tiwari to cultivate his land.

Finally, Sachinnand Tiwari decided to sell his land and agreement was executed with one Jitendra Tripathi for 2 acres 28 dismal land and agreement amounting to Rs.1 Crore 1 Lakh was to be executed and amount was paid to Sachinand Tiwari in advance. At the time of executing the agreement, it was assured that land over which Ramkishore has constructed his house i.e. in 5 dismal, would not be touched. Thereafter, Jitendra Tripathi has erected pillars in south-east direction of the house of Ramkishore, but Ramkishore eradicated the same and thereafter Jitendra Tripathi obtained stay order from Tahsildar and case was fixed for 19.07.2022. On 14.07.2022, the petitioners went to the house of Ramkrishna and tried to obtain possession from him and his daughter-in-law Asha Tiwari tried to stop them but they did not pay heed to her voice and then Asha Tiwari committed suicide. Thereafter, Ramkishore (respondent No.2) lodged the FIR against the present petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners sanguinely submitted that it was purely a civil dispute between the parties and from the contents of FIR and also from the statements of witnesses nowhere it has come that at any point of time, the petitioners have abetted or compelled the deceased to commit suicide. It also does not reflect that the petitioners created such an atmosphere leaving no option for the deceased but to take her own life. Further, the documents do not suggest what degree of harassment was given by the petitioners which could lead the deceased to commit suicide. Merely, it has come that since the petitioners went to the house of Ramkishore for taking possession of land for which the petitioners had obtained stay, the deceased restricted them and when they did not follow her and then she committed suicide.

Shri Kochar submitted that as per the settled principle of law for bringing home the charge of Section 306 IPC, the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC must be available, but here in this case, there is dearth of ingredients and as such no case is made out.

5. Vehemently opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as also respondent No.2 submitted that the trial is still going-on and it will be decided in the trial whether the offence is made out or not and at this stage conducting mini trial is not proper and allegations made in the FIR otherwise constitute the offence of Section 306 IPC because the deceased committed suicide due to harassment given by the petitioners leaving no other option to her but to commit suicide. Ergo, according to them, the petition being bereft of substance, is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have patiently heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and also perused the record.

7. On mature consideration of the under