IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AMAR NATH & OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Argued by: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab Mr. A.P.S. Tung, Advocate for complainant/respondent No.2. SUBHAS MEHLA 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr Complaint No.98 of 2015 Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and the summoning order dated 04.08.201 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submit does not wish to press the present petition qua petitioner No.3 wife of the deceased. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the dated 08.02.2018 whereby n only qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel further submit said position was reiterated before this Court on 13.0 present petition survives only qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH AMAR NATH & OTHERS V/S STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. A.P.S. Tung, Advocate for complainant/respondent No.2. SUBHAS MEHLA, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C') seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint No.98 of 2015 dated 12.10.2015 (Annexure P Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and the summoning order dated 04.08.2017 (Annexure P Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submit does not wish to press the present petition qua petitioner No.3 e of the deceased. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the dated 08.02.2018 whereby notice of motion was issued only qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel further submit said position was reiterated before this Court on 13.0 present petition survives only qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-5383-2018(O&M) Reserved On: 13.05.2026 Pronounced On: 01.08.2026 ...Petitioners ...Respondents SUBHAS MEHLA the petitioners. Mr. A.P.S. Tung, Advocate for complainant/respondent No.2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code C') seeking quashing of Criminal dated 12.10.2015 (Annexure P-5) instituted under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and the 7 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he does not wish to press the present petition qua petitioner No.3-Dimple Rani, e of the deceased. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order otion was issued to the respondents only qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel further submitted that the said position was reiterated before this Court on 13.02.2023. Accordingly, the present petition survives only qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2. GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 BRIEF FACTS 3. Briefly stated, the case of respondent No.2 brother Ran Pal was married to petitioner No.3 and a male chil discord between the spouses, petitioner No.3 started residing separately at her parental home along with the minor child. It is alleged that though a compromise was arrived at between the parties throu respectable persons, the same could not materialize. According to the complainant, whenever the deceased visited the parental house of petitioner No.3 to meet his son, he was not permitted to do so by the accused persons, as a result whereof he remained under mental stress. 4. On 07.05.2013, the deceased was found lying in an unconscious condition in his shop and was stated to have consumed some poisonous substance. A suicide note was allegedly recovered from the spot. On the basis of the statement made by respondent No.2, FIR No.23 dated 07.05.2013 came to be registered at Police Station Mukerian 5. During investigation, the matter was inquired into by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mukerian. was opined that no material had surfaced indicating abetment of suicide on the part of the accused persons and a cancellation report was accordingly recommended. The said recommendation was concurred with by the District Attorney (Legal) Superintendent of Police (Investigation), Hoshiarpur, Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur forwarded to the competent Court. 18 -2- BRIEF FACTS Briefly stated, the case of respondent No.2 brother Ran Pal was married to petitioner No.3 and a male child was born from the said wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord between the spouses, petitioner No.3 started residing separately at her parental home along with the minor child. It is alleged that though a compromise was arrived at between the parties throu respectable persons, the same could not materialize. According to the complainant, whenever the deceased visited the parental house of petitioner No.3 to meet his son, he was not permitted to do so by the accused persons, as whereof he remained under mental stress. On 07.05.2013, the deceased was found lying in an unconscious condition in his shop and was stated to have consumed some poisonous substance. A suicide note was allegedly recovered from the spot. On the basis f the statement made by respondent No.2, FIR No.23 dated 07.05.2013 came to be registered at Police Station Mukerian, under Sections 306 and 34 IPC. During investigation, the matter was inquired into by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mukerian. was opined that no material had surfaced indicating abetment of suicide on the part of the accused persons and a cancellation report was accordingly recommended. The said recommendation was concurred with by the District rney (Legal), Hoshiarpur and was thereafter approved by the Superintendent of Police (Investigation), Hoshiarpur, Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur whereupon forwarded to the competent Court. Briefly stated, the case of respondent No.2-complainant is that his brother Ran Pal was married to petitioner No.3-Dimple Rani on 15.04.2008 d was born from the said wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord between the spouses, petitioner No.3 started residing separately at her parental home along with the minor child. It is alleged that though a compromise was arrived at between the parties through the intervention of respectable persons, the same could not materialize. According to the complainant, whenever the deceased visited the parental house of petitioner No.3 to meet his son, he was not permitted to do so by the accused persons, as whereof he remained under mental stress. On 07.05.2013, the deceased was found lying in an unconscious condition in his shop and was stated to have consumed some poisonous substance. A suicide note was allegedly recovered from the spot. On the basis f the statement made by respondent No.2, FIR No.23 dated 07.05.2013 came under Sections 306 and 34 IPC. During investigation, the matter was inquired into by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mukerian. Upon completion of inquiry, it was opined that no material had surfaced indicating abetment of suicide on the part of the accused persons and a cancellation report was accordingly recommended. The said recommendation was concurred with by the District and was thereafter approved by the Superintendent of Police (Investigation), Hoshiarpur, as well as the Senior whereupon the cancellation report was f the statement made by respondent No.2, FIR No.23 dated 07.05.2013 came GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 6. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, respondent No.2 instituted Criminal Complaint No.98 of 2015 dated 12.10.2015. In support thereof, preliminary evidence was led by the complainant. Upon consideration of the complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereo Magistrate First Class, Mukerian, vide summoned the accused persons to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 been filed. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have been falsely implicated in the present case solely on account of their relationship with petitioner No.3. It is submitted that neither allegations contained in the complaint nor support thereof disclose any specific overt act attributable to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 which may constitute the offence alleged. Learned counsel submit that the allegations and devoid of material particulars. It is further contended that no specific incident, threat, provocation or conduct has been attributed to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 so as to establish the requisite 306 of IPC. Learned counsel accordingly submit criminal proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 would amount to abuse of the process of law. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1 8. Learned State counsel submitted that allegations levelled against the accused persons were thoroughly inquired into 18 -3- Notwithstanding the aforesaid, respondent No.2 instituted Criminal Complaint No.98 of 2015 dated 12.10.2015. In support thereof, preliminary evidence was led by the complainant. Upon consideration of the complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereo Magistrate First Class, Mukerian, vide impugned summoned the accused persons to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC. Aggrieved thereagainst, the present petition has CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have been falsely implicated in the present case solely on account of their relationship with petitioner No.3. It is submitted that neither contained in the complaint nor the preliminary evidence led in support thereof disclose any specific overt act attributable to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 which may constitute the offence alleged. Learned counsel submit that the allegations levelled against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are vague, omnibus and devoid of material particulars. It is further contended that no specific incident, threat, provocation or conduct has been attributed to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 so as to establish the requisite ingredients of the offence under Section IPC. Learned counsel accordingly submit criminal proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 would amount to abuse of the process of law. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1 Learned State counsel submitted that allegations levelled against the accused persons were thoroughly inquired into Notwithstanding the aforesaid, respondent No.2 instituted Criminal Complaint No.98 of 2015 dated 12.10.2015. In support thereof, preliminary evidence was led by the complainant. Upon consideration of the complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereof, the learned Judicial impugned order dated 04.08.2017, summoned the accused persons to face trial for offences punishable under against, the present petition has CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have been falsely implicated in the present case solely on account of their relationship with petitioner No.3. It is submitted that neither the he preliminary evidence led in support thereof disclose any specific overt act attributable to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 which may constitute the offence alleged. Learned counsel submitted levelled against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are vague, omnibus and devoid of material particulars. It is further contended that no specific incident, threat, provocation or conduct has been attributed to petitioner Nos.1 ingredients of the offence under Section IPC. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 would amount to abuse of CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1-STATE Learned State counsel submitted that during investigation the allegations levelled against the accused persons were thoroughly inquired into GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mukerian, and a cancellation report was ultimately submitted after approval from the competent authorities. However, the complainant was not satisfied therewith and consequently instituted a complaint, upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mukerian, vide order dated 04.08.2 submitted that as instituted by respondent No.2 and not on a police report has nothing to urge in the CONTENTIONS ON 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has supported the complaint and the impugned summoning order and submitted that sufficient material was available before the learned Magistrate to form a prima facie opinion regarding commission of offences under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC. It is argued that the allegations disclose continuous harassment of the deceased and, therefore, no interference is warranted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS 10. Heard and record perused 11. The allegations contained in the complaint and the preliminary evidence, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of an Section 306 of IPC against petitioner Nos.1 and 2. 12. It is a settled principle 482 of Cr.P.C principles governing exercise of such jurisdiction stand authoritatively laid 18 -4- by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mukerian, and a cancellation report was ultimately submitted after approval from the competent authorities. the complainant was not satisfied therewith and consequently instituted a complaint, upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mukerian, vide order dated 04.08.2017, summoned the petitioners as the petitioners have been summoned on a private complaint instituted by respondent No.2 and not on a police report o urge in the present matter. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has supported the complaint and the impugned summoning order and submitted that sufficient material was available before the learned Magistrate to form a inion regarding commission of offences under Sections 306 and IPC. It is argued that the allegations disclose continuous harassment of the deceased and, therefore, no interference is warranted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS Heard and record perused. The primary question requiring determination allegations contained in the complaint and the preliminary evidence, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of an IPC against petitioner Nos.1 and 2. It is a settled principle that the inherent jurisdiction under Section C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The principles governing exercise of such jurisdiction stand authoritatively laid by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mukerian, and a cancellation report was ultimately submitted after approval from the competent authorities. the complainant was not satisfied therewith and consequently instituted a complaint, upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 017, summoned the petitioners. He further the petitioners have been summoned on a private complaint instituted by respondent No.2 and not on a police report, accordingly, the State BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has supported the complaint and the impugned summoning order and submitted that sufficient material was available before the learned Magistrate to form a inion regarding commission of offences under Sections 306 and IPC. It is argued that the allegations disclose continuous harassment of the deceased and, therefore, no interference is warranted in exercise of P.C. primary question requiring determination is whether the allegations contained in the complaint and the preliminary evidence, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of an offence punishable under IPC against petitioner Nos.1 and 2. that the inherent jurisdiction under Section . is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The principles governing exercise of such jurisdiction stand authoritatively laid that sufficient material was available before the learned Magistrate to form a GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401 interference would be justified where, even if the allegations contained in the complaint are t offence is disclosed and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. In delineated certain categories wherein e Section 482 of “1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigat under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. ... 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking view to spite him due to private and personal grudge 18 -5- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,1992 SCC(Cri) 426 Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401. However, the said decisions themselves recognize that interference would be justified where, even if the allegations contained in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no offence is disclosed and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has delineated certain categories wherein exercise of extraordinary powers under Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings is justified 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigat under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge 1992 SCC(Cri) 426, and have been Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, However, the said decisions themselves recognize that interference would be justified where, even if the allegations contained in the aken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no offence is disclosed and continuation of the proceedings would amount to Hon’ble Supreme Court has xercise of extraordinary powers under to quash criminal proceedings is justified: 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 Further made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court “33.13. The power under Section 482 conferm It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court. 33.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self restraint imposed this Court in R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal, has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint Even prior thereto 1960 SC 866 the Hon’ble Apex Court "Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no questi evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person." The present case falls within the aforesaid well exceptions. 13. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it would be apposite to notice the legal position governing an offence under Section 306 IPC. Section 306 of suicide. The expression "abetment" has been defined under Section 107 18 -6- Further, in Neeharika (supra), the following observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: 33.13. The power under Section 482 conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court. 33.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal, has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint” Even prior thereto, in R.P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab the Hon’ble Apex Court made the "Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no questi evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person." The present case falls within the aforesaid well Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it would be e to notice the legal position governing an offence under Section 306 IPC. Section 306 of IPC is attracted only where a person abets the commission of suicide. The expression "abetment" has been defined under Section 107 , the following observations were 33.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but ent of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court. 33.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self restraint by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal, has the jurisdiction to . Kapur v. The State of Punjab, AIR made the following observations: "Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the The present case falls within the aforesaid well-recognized Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it would be e to notice the legal position governing an offence under Section 306 of IPC is attracted only where a person abets the commission of suicide. The expression "abetment" has been defined under Section 107 of GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 IPC and contemplates instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. It is well settled that in order to bring a case within the ambit of Section 306 there must exist a clear on his part which can commit suicide. 14. Since the controversy in the present case pertains to an offence under Section 306 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held in a plethora of decisions that mere harassment or ordinary discord, howsoever unfortunate, would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide link between the conduct attributed to the accused and the act of suicide. The requirement of instigation or intentional aid cannot be dispensed with In Hon’ble Supreme Court has held hereu “45. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. In SCC 707 the foll “16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section Indian Penal Code there must be a case of suicide and in the commissi abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person 18 -7- IPC and contemplates instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. It is well settled that in order to bring a case within the ambit of Section 306 there must exist a clear mens rea on the part of the accused and a positive act on his part which can reasonably be said to have driven the deceased to commit suicide. Since the controversy in the present case pertains to an offence under Section 306 of IPC, it would be apposite to Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held in a plethora of decisions that mere harassment or ordinary discord, howsoever unfortunate, would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide, unless there exists a proximat link between the conduct attributed to the accused and the act of suicide. The requirement of instigation or intentional aid cannot be dispensed with In M. Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu Hon’ble Supreme Court has held hereunder: 45. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal following was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: 16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section Indian Penal Code there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and IPC and contemplates instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. It is well settled that in order to bring a case within the ambit of Section 306 of IPC, on the part of the accused and a positive act reasonably be said to have driven the deceased to Since the controversy in the present case pertains to an offence IPC, it would be apposite to take into consideration that Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held in a plethora of decisions that mere harassment or ordinary discord, howsoever unfortunate, would not by unless there exists a proximate and live link between the conduct attributed to the accused and the act of suicide. The requirement of instigation or intentional aid cannot be dispensed with. M. Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 3 SCC 626, the 45. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.” Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 wing was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: 16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code there must be a case of suicide and in the on of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the charged with the said offence must be proved and mere harassment or ordinary discord, howsoever unfortunate, would not by GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section Further, in 144, the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex importance, wherein the complaint case involving allegations under Section 306 of IPC: 22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on t compelled the commission of suicide …. 34. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court under Section of the Constitution of India, now stands well defined by judicial pronouncements. Undoubtedly, every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The powers being very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power vested in the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. However, the inherent power or the extra power conferred upon the High Court, entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the to be quashed. 18 -8- established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.” Further, in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex importance, wherein the complaint against the appellant was set aside case involving allegations under Section 306 of IPC: 22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide …. 34. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court under Section 482CrPC or the extra-ordinary power under Article of the Constitution of India, now stands well defined by judicial pronouncements. Undoubtedly, every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The powers being very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power vested in the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate osecution. However, the inherent power or the extra power conferred upon the High Court, entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court, or the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.” established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court are of particular the appellant was set aside in a case involving allegations under Section 306 of IPC: 22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are he part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide….. 34. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court under ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, now stands well defined by series of judicial pronouncements. Undoubtedly, every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The powers being very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power vested in the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate osecution. However, the inherent power or the extra-ordinary power conferred upon the High Court, entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of Court, or the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 15. Examined in the light of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the genesis of the dispute in the present case is the strained matrimonial relationship between th allegations contained in the complaint primarily pertain to separation of spouses, failure of a compromise and the deceased allegedly being denied access to his minor child. 16. Th whenever the deceased visited the parental house of petitioner No.3 for meeting his son, he was not permitted to do so and was turned away from the house. Except for the aforesaid allega preliminary evidence attributes any specific overt act to petitioner Nos.1 and 2. No particular incident, date, threat, inducement, provocation or act of intentional aid has been attributed to them. The allegations again Nos.1 and 2 are wholly omnibus and general in nature. 17. Fu are not founded upon any incident personally witnessed by him. disputed that respondent No.2 occasions when the deceased allegedly visited the parental home of petitioner No.3 and was denied access to his child. Equally, there is no material to indicate that the deceased had conveyed any specific incident involving petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to respondent No.2. These circumstances assume significance particularly when the allegations against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were not found substantiated during the course of investigation 18. More importantly, neither the complaint no evidence attributes any act to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 immediately preceding 18 -9- Examined in the light of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the genesis of the dispute in the present case is the strained matrimonial relationship between the deceased and petitioner No.3 allegations contained in the complaint primarily pertain to separation of spouses, failure of a compromise and the deceased allegedly being denied access to his minor child. he only allegation levelled against whenever the deceased visited the parental house of petitioner No.3 for meeting his son, he was not permitted to do so and was turned away from the house. Except for the aforesaid allegation, neither the complaint nor the preliminary evidence attributes any specific overt act to petitioner Nos.1 and 2. No particular incident, date, threat, inducement, provocation or act of intentional aid has been attributed to them. The allegations again Nos.1 and 2 are wholly omnibus and general in nature. urther, the allegations levelled by respondent No. are not founded upon any incident personally witnessed by him. disputed that respondent No.2-complainant was not occasions when the deceased allegedly visited the parental home of petitioner No.3 and was denied access to his child. Equally, there is no material to indicate that the deceased had conveyed any specific incident involving ioner Nos.1 and 2 to respondent No.2. These circumstances assume significance particularly when the allegations against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were not found substantiated during the course of investigation More importantly, neither the complaint no evidence attributes any act to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 immediately preceding Examined in the light of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the genesis of the dispute in the present case is the strained matrimonial e deceased and petitioner No.3-Dimple Rani. The allegations contained in the complaint primarily pertain to separation of spouses, failure of a compromise and the deceased allegedly being denied only allegation levelled against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is that whenever the deceased visited the parental house of petitioner No.3 for meeting his son, he was not permitted to do so and was turned away from the tion, neither the complaint nor the preliminary evidence attributes any specific overt act to petitioner Nos.1 and 2. No particular incident, date, threat, inducement, provocation or act of intentional aid has been attributed to them. The allegations against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are wholly omnibus and general in nature. he allegations levelled by respondent No.2-complainant are not founded upon any incident personally witnessed by him. It is also not complainant was not personally present on the occasions when the deceased allegedly visited the parental home of petitioner No.3 and was denied access to his child. Equally, there is no material to indicate that the deceased had conveyed any specific incident involving ioner Nos.1 and 2 to respondent No.2. These circumstances assume significance particularly when the allegations against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were not found substantiated during the course of investigation. More importantly, neither the complaint nor the preliminary evidence attributes any act to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 immediately preceding ioner Nos.1 and 2 to respondent No.2. These circumstances assume r the preliminary GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 the occurrence which could reasonably be construed as having compelled the deceased to take the extreme step. The requirement of a proximate and live nexus between the conduct attributed to the accused and the act of suicide is therefore conspicuously absent in the present case. 19. The aforesaid conclusion becomes even more evident upon examination of the deceased, the translated version whereof A perusal of the aforesaid suicide note not find mention therein. discussing the material produced before him, observed that the suicide notes allegedly left by the deceas wife Dimple Rani. The impugned order does not record that the suicide notes attribute any specific role to petitioner Nos.1 and 2. It is also not disputed that the present petition is not being pressed qua 18 -10- the occurrence which could reasonably be construed as having compelled the deceased to take the extreme step. The requirement of a proximate and live n the conduct attributed to the accused and the act of suicide is therefore conspicuously absent in the present case. The aforesaid conclusion becomes even more evident upon examination of the two suicide notes (Annexure P the translated version whereof reads as under: “My proof, Ran Pal. I have taken the medicine being fed Being fed-up from Dimple Rani. My brother has no fault. Neither, ever harassed to Dimple. Dimple Rani spars by brother.” --- “My proof Ran Pal, I have committed suicide Dimple Rani. She is doing the business of theft, took money & my all brothers have no fault, they are living separately. They have no fault. I was kept inside by levelling false allegations A perusal of the aforesaid suicide notes shows that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 do not find mention therein. Significantly, the learned Magistrate, while discussing the material produced before him, observed that the suicide notes allegedly left by the deceased contained allegations of harassment against his wife Dimple Rani. The impugned order does not record that the suicide notes attribute any specific role to petitioner Nos.1 and 2. It is also not disputed that the present petition is not being pressed qua petitioner No.3, the occurrence which could reasonably be construed as having compelled the deceased to take the extreme step. The requirement of a proximate and live n the conduct attributed to the accused and the act of suicide is therefore conspicuously absent in the present case. The aforesaid conclusion becomes even more evident upon s (Annexure P-7) allegedly left by the as under:- I have taken the medicine being fed-up from my life. up from Dimple Rani. My brother has no fault. Neither, ever harassed to Dimple. Dimple Rani --- I have committed suicide being harassed by my wife Dimple Rani. She is doing the business of theft, took money & my all brothers have no fault, they are living separately. They have no fault. I was kept inside by false allegations.” shows that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 do Significantly, the learned Magistrate, while discussing the material produced before him, observed that the suicide notes ed contained allegations of harassment against his wife Dimple Rani. The impugned order does not record that the suicide notes attribute any specific role to petitioner Nos.1 and 2. It is also not disputed that petitioner No.3, and, therefore, GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 this Court refrains from making any observation regarding the merits of the allegations against her. 20. At this stage, it would be apposite to notice the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 “26. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and that would be suf the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is accused. 21. Viewed cumulatively, the allegations contained in the complaint, the preliminary evidence and the contents of the suicide note do not disclose the essential ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 insofar as petitioner No indicate that the deceased was distressed on account of matrimonial discord and issues concerning access to his child. Such allegations, without anything further, cannot be elevated to the level of instigat attract criminal liability under Section 306 18 -11- this Court refrains from making any observation regarding the merits of the allegations against her. At this stage, it would be apposite to notice the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. (1998) 5 SCC 749, wherein it was held as under: 26. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. ... The order of the Magistrate summoning the must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and that would be suf the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” Viewed cumulatively, the allegations contained in the complaint, the preliminary evidence and the contents of the suicide note do not disclose the essential ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned. At best, the allegations indicate that the deceased was distressed on account of matrimonial discord and issues concerning access to his child. Such allegations, without anything further, cannot be elevated to the level of instigat attract criminal liability under Section 306 of IPC this Court refrains from making any observation regarding the merits of the At this stage, it would be apposite to notice the observations of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial , wherein it was held as under:- 26. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of . The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and that would be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if committed by all or any of the Viewed cumulatively, the allegations contained in the complaint, the preliminary evidence and the contents of the suicide note do not disclose the essential ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC s.1 and 2 are concerned. At best, the allegations indicate that the deceased was distressed on account of matrimonial discord and issues concerning access to his child. Such allegations, without anything further, cannot be elevated to the level of instigation or intentional aid so as to IPC qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2. GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 22. It is further noteworthy that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are merely the parents of petitioner No.3 and were residing separately from the deceased. The allegations against the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in and others v. State of Bihar and others courts against permitting criminal prosecution of relative vague and omnibus allegations, particularly in matters arising out of matrimonial discord. the context of an offence under Section 498A of the judgement cases having arisen out of a matrimonial dispute and involving allegations against family members of the principal accused has observed as follows: 18. The above court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section implicating relatives without analysing the long term ramifi complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said omnibus if left unchecked would result in misuse of Therefore, this court by way of its courts from proceeding against the relatives and in husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 19. Coming to the facts accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy 18 -12- It is further noteworthy that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are merely the parents of petitioner No.3 and were residing separately from the deceased. The allegations against them stem solely from their relationship with the wife of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 ourts against permitting criminal prosecution of relative vague and omnibus allegations, particularly in matters arising out of matrimonial discord. Though Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam the context of an offence under Section 498A o judgement is equally relevant to the controversy involved herein, both cases having arisen out of a matrimonial dispute and involving allegations against family members of the principal accused has observed as follows: 18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the implicating relatives of the husband without analysing the long term ramifi complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgements that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of Therefore, this court by way of its courts from proceeding against the relatives and in husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 19. Coming to the facts … The complainant alleged th accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and It is further noteworthy that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are merely the parents of petitioner No.3 and were residing separately from the deceased. The them stem solely from their relationship with the wife of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam , (2022) 6 SCC 599, has cautioned ourts against permitting criminal prosecution of relatives on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, particularly in matters arising out of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra) arose in of IPC, the underlying rationale lly relevant to the controversy involved herein, both cases having arisen out of a matrimonial dispute and involving allegations against family members of the principal accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the IPC and the increased tendency of of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from false implication by way of general made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgements has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of . Furthermore, no specific and GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at b account of small skirmishes. Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. … 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the rele and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. … 24. As a result, appeal stands allowed. The aforesaid observations, though rendered in the context of Section 498A o cannot be permitted to continue against relatives of the principal accused on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations the principal accused, in the absence of any specific role or mater the essential ingredients of the offence alleged, cannot justify subjecting such persons to the rigours of a criminal trial. 23. The record FIR, a detailed inquiry was conducted by Police, Mukerian. The inquiry culminated in a finding that no material had 18 -13- distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. … 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the rele and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. … 24. As a result, appeal stands allowed. The aforesaid observations, though rendered in the context of of IPC, reiterate the settled principle that criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue against relatives of the principal accused on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, and that the principal accused, in the absence of any specific role or mater the essential ingredients of the offence alleged, cannot justify subjecting such persons to the rigours of a criminal trial. The record in the present case reveals that after registration of the FIR, a detailed inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mukerian. The inquiry culminated in a finding that no material had distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general est be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. .... However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. … 24. As a result, appeal stands allowed.” (emphasis supplied) The aforesaid observations, though rendered in the context of principle that criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue against relatives of the principal accused on , and that mere relationship with the principal accused, in the absence of any specific role or material disclosing the essential ingredients of the offence alleged, cannot justify subjecting such reveals that after registration of the the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mukerian. The inquiry culminated in a finding that no material had GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 surfaced indicating instigation, conspiracy or abetment on the part of the accused persons. The matter was thereafter examined by the District Attorn (Legal), who also opined that no evidence of instigation was available against the accused persons. Superintendent Superintendent accordingly forwarded not binding upon the learned Magistrate, the same nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance which supports the conclusion that no material disclosing the ingredients of Section 306 petitioner Nos.1 an 24. Even upon an independent examination of the complaint, the preliminary evidence, the reply filed by respond summoning order, this Court is unable to find any material indicating that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had either instigated, conspired with, or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide. CONCLUSION 25. In the considered criminal proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 would amount to abuse of the process of law. The allegations contained in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, ingredients constituting an offence under Section 306 107 of IPC qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2 26. Consequently, the present petition is Nos.1 and 2. Criminal Complaint No.98 of 2015 18 -14- surfaced indicating instigation, conspiracy or abetment on the part of the accused persons. The matter was thereafter examined by the District Attorn (Legal), who also opined that no evidence of instigation was available against the accused persons. The said opinion w of Police (Investigation) of Police, Hoshiarpur, whereu forwarded to the Magistrate. Though the can not binding upon the learned Magistrate, the same nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance which supports the conclusion that no material disclosing the ingredients of Section 306 of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. ven upon an independent examination of the complaint, the preliminary evidence, the reply filed by respond summoning order, this Court is unable to find any material indicating that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had either instigated, conspired with, or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide. CONCLUSION In the considered opinion of this Court, continuation of the criminal proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 would amount to abuse of the process of law. The allegations contained in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, ingredients constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Consequently, the present petition is Nos.1 and 2. Criminal Complaint No.98 of 2015 surfaced indicating instigation, conspiracy or abetment on the part of the accused persons. The matter was thereafter examined by the District Attorney (Legal), who also opined that no evidence of instigation was available against was concurred with by the ), Hoshiarpur and Senior upon a cancellation report was Though the cancellation report was not binding upon the learned Magistrate, the same nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance which supports the conclusion that no material of IPC had surfaced against ven upon an independent examination of the complaint, the preliminary evidence, the reply filed by respondent No.2 and the impugned summoning order, this Court is unable to find any material indicating that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had either instigated, conspired with, or intentionally opinion of this Court, continuation of the criminal proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 would amount to abuse of the process of law. The allegations contained in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose the essential ingredients constituting an offence under Section 306 of IPC read with Section Consequently, the present petition is allowed qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Criminal Complaint No.98 of 2015 dated 12.10.2015, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had either instigated, conspired with, or intentionally GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-5383-201 summoning order dated 04.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mukerian, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to petitioner Nos.1 and 2, are hereby quashed. 27. Since th Rani, the proceedings against her shall continue in accordance with law and shall remain unaffected by the present order. 28. Pending (misc.) application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 01.08.2026 Geeta 18 -15- summoning order dated 04.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mukerian, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to petitioner Nos.1 and 2, are hereby quashed. Since the petition was not pressed qua petitioner No.3 Rani, the proceedings against her shall continue in accordance with law and shall remain unaffected by the present order. Pending (misc.) application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Whether Reportable: summoning order dated 04.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mukerian, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to petitioner Nos.1 and 2, are hereby quashed. e petition was not pressed qua petitioner No.3-Dimple Rani, the proceedings against her shall continue in accordance with law and Pending (misc.) application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE YES/NO YES/NO First Class, Mukerian, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, GEETA RANI 2026.08.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh