Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45736 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6330 of 2025 Applicant :- Sadhna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushalendra K. Tripathi,Rameshwar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Shri Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, the same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Pramod Kumar Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 3. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the following relief:- "Wherefore, it is most humble prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings on the Charge Sheet no.01/2025 dated 15.01.2025 in Case Crime No.0103/2024, Criminal Case No.35/2025, U/S 306 IPC P.S- Haiderganj, District- Ayodhya as well as Summoning Order dated 10.01.2025 in Case Crime No.0103/2024, Criminal Case No.35/2025, U/S 306 IPC P.S- Haiderganj, District- Ayodhya in State of U.P. vs. Sadhna & Others, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Second), Ayodhya (Annexure No.1 & 2)." 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that in the night of 11.05.2024/ 12.05.2024, the husband of the petitioner, under a drunken state, committed suicide and the applicant and her children were not present over there as they were thrown away from the house by the deceased by beating them. He further submits that, in fact, the statement of Parasnath Verma is evident that no offence has been committed by the applicant. He also added that the ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) do not attract in this matter, as there is no instigation or abetment to commit suicide attributed to the applicant, who was not present at the site/ scene. He also submitted that the First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged after 45 days of the alleged incident and no plausible explanation is given thereof. He pointed out that there is a suicide note, which discloses that the applicant has committed suicide because of an illicit relation with one of the person and it has also stated in same breathe that the family members of the deceased are not at fault. 5. Adding his argument, he submits that once the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence then she could not have been involved in abetting the deceased to commit suicide. He further added that there are statements of the independent witnesses, which also do not properly corroborate the prosecution, as the applicant is not named by them. He also submitted that the whole criminal proceeding is an abuse of process of law and the same may be quashed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the FIR itself is apparent that the applicant is named and the specific allegation is levelled against her for committing the offence. He submits that there is a dying declaration in the form of a suicide note and that also discloses that the applicant is the person who has abetted to commit the suicide, thus, the applicant is not entitled to any relief. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and submitted that after a thorough investigation, it was found that there are substantial evidence against the applicant, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for relief. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the incident took place inside the deceased's house and the FIR prima facie discloses that it is the applicant, who abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Annexure No.5, appended alongwith the application, also reveals that the deceased has left a suicide note by mentioning that he has committed suicide because of illicit relation of his wife with someone else. 9. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was not present on the place of the incident but this fact could not be ascertained at this stage as the settled law is that the plea of alibi could be gone into at the stage of trial and considering such plea would amount to mini-trial. 10. The next question of consideration is the delay in lodging the FIR i.e. about 45 days but this plea cannot alone be a ground for quashing of criminal proceeding. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court do not find any merit in this case, thus, the instant application is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is given to the applicant to pursue appropriate remedy before the learned trial court. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench