HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2065 of 2021 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. सूची पुनरीिWत। 2. कायाăलय आćया के अनुसार िवपWी सं० 2 को ęयायालय के आदेश िदनांक 25.06.2021 के माĘयम से नोिटस िनगăत की गयी है तथा िवपWी सं० 2 की ओर से िवDZान अिधवǘा का नाम वाद सूची मȅ अंिकत है, िकतु आज उनकी ओर से कोई उपिĥथत नहȂ है। 3. आवेदक की ओर से धारा 482 दं०Š०सं० के अंतगăत Šĥतुत यह आवेदन पś, मु०अ०सं० 1222 वषă 2018 अęतगăत धारा 306, 504 भारतीय दअड संिहता, थाना कोतवाली सदर, िजला लखीमपुर-खीरी मȅ Šेिषत आरोप पś िदनांिकत 23.02.2020 से उǭूत वाद सं० 2251 वषă 2020 मȅ मुćय ęयाियक मिजĥŖेट, लखीमपुर-खीरी DZारा पािरत ŠसंXान/तलबी आदेश िदनांक 04.06.2020 एवं इसके फलĥवɴप अिŎम कायăवाही को खिĔडत करने हेतु योिजत िकया गया है। 4. आवेदक की ओर से िवDZान विरǹ अिधवǘा ũी अमरेęŝ नाथ िśपाठी व उनके सहयोगी िवDZान अिधवǘा ũी संजीव कु मार एवं िवDZान अपर शासकीय अिधवǘा ũी रण िवजय िसह को सुना तथा पśावली का पिरशीलन िकया। 5. िवDZान अपर शासकीय अिधवǘा DZारा Šितशपथ-पś दािखल िकया गया, इसे पśावली पर रखा जाय। 6. संWेप मȅ अिभयोजन कथानक यह है िक अिभयोिगनी DZारा संबंिधत थाने पर इस आशय का Šाथăôा पś Šĥतुत िकया गया िक उसका पित िसचाई िवभाग मȅ चतुथă ũेणी के पद पर कायăरत Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Harish Pandey, Prarthna Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Anil K Tripathi, Armendra Pratap Singh, Pankaj Bala Anoop Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) था। िदनांक 13.10.20108 को पíोस मȅ रहने वाले अनूप कु मार पुś ĥव० बाबूराम से कु छ कहान सुनी हो गयी, िजससे अनूप कु मार ने बेरहमी से लाठी डĔडे से मारा-पीटा तथा घटना से WुĜध होकर व समाज मȅ अपनी बेčजती महसूस करते ɷए मेरे पित जहर खाकर अपनी जान दे दी। आप से िनवेदन है िक उपरोǘ Dzिǘ के ऊपर कानूनी कायăवाही करने की कृ पा करȅ। 7. (क) आवेदक के िवDZान अिधवǘा ने तकă Šĥतुत िकया िक मृतक एवं आवेदक, दोनȋ ही िसचाई िवभाग मȅ कायăरत थे, जहाँ आवेदक विरǹ सहायक के पद पर तथा ĥवगȃय िबजɴ/ मृतक चतुथă ũेणी कमăचारी के पद पर एक ही िसचाई खĔड, शारदा नगर, जनपद लखीमपुर- खीरी मȅ कायăरत थे। किथत घटना िदनांक 13.10.2018 को बतायी गयी है, िकतु तĕसमय आवेदक DZारा मृतक के साथ कोई अपमानजनक एवं अशोभनीय भाषा का Šयोग या मारपीट िकया गया, अगले िदवस अथाăत िदनांक 14.10.2018 को Šतीत होता है िक मृतक ने िवषपान िकया था, िजसके उपराęत उसे िजला अĥपताल ले जाया गया, जहाँ उसकी मृĕयु हो गई। शव परीWण Šपś का अवलोकन करने से ĥपǸ होता है िक मृĕयु का कारण िनधाăिरत नहȂ िकया जा सका, अतः िवसरा संरिWत िकया गया। तदोपरांत, िवसरा के िविध िवXान Šयोगशाल के परीWण Šपś के अôुसार िवष पाया गया। यहां अित Šासंिगक तĖय यह है िक अिभयोजन पW DZारा आवेदक पर मृतक को लाठी-डĔडȋ से मारने-पीटने का आWेप आरोिपत िकया गया, िकतु यह पूणăतया असĕय एवं मनगîंत है, Ćयȋिक ऐसा कोई भी घटना-Ōम घिटत नहȂ ɷआ। इसकी पिरपुिǸ मृतक के शव परीWण Šपś के अवलोकन से यह भी ĥपǸ है, Ćयȋिक मृतक के शरीर पर िकसी Šकार की चोट अथवा कोई भी चोट के िचęह नहȂ पाए गए। इससे पिरलिWत हो रहा है िक इस वाद की मूल आWेप िक आवेदक के DZारा मृतक के साथ मारपीट की गयी, िजससे WुĜध होकर मृतक DZारा उǘ घटना कािरत की गयी, उǘ मूल आWेप ही मृतक के शव परीWण Šपś के अôुसार ही पिरपुिǸ नहȂ हो रही है, Ćयȋिक मृतक के शरीर पर कोई चोट नहȂ पायी गयी है। आगे यह भी कहा गया िक साWी मांझी DZारा जानकारी होने के उपरांत उसे घटना की जानकारी ɷई तथा ĥवतंś साWी बाबू उफă Šेमचęद एवं सुषील कु मार वमाă DZारा अपने बयानȋ मȅ शोर सुनकर घटना की ओर देखने तथा अगले िदन मारपीट की घटना से WुĜध होकर जहरीला पदाथă खाने का उसे पता चला, का कथन िकया गया। इससे ĥपǸ है िक अिभयोजन साWीगण DZारा के वल शोर-शराबा सुनने के आधार बयान िकया गया है, कोई घटना के समय वहां उपिĥथत नहȂ था। इससे पिरलिWत है िक अिभयोजन साWीगण का बयान, मृतक के शव परीWण Šपś के अôुसार समथăनीय नहȂ हो रहा है। उपयुăǘ तĖयȋ से ĥपǸ है िक आवेदक DZारा मृतक को िकसी Šकार का उकसावा या Šेरणा नहȂ दी गई है जो िक धारा 306 भारतीय दĔड संिहता के तहत अपराध को आकिषत कर सके , िजसकी भाषा िनĞनानुसार उǪृत है— “धारा 306 – आĕमहĕया के िलए ɭĤŠेरण—यिद कोई Dzिǘ आĕमहĕया कर लेता है, तो जो कोई ऐसी आĕमहĕया के िलए ɭĤŠेरण करता है, उसे िकसी एक Šकार के कारावास से दिĔडत िकया जाएगा, िजसकी अविध दस वषă तक हो सकती है, तथा A482 No. 2065 of 2021 2 साथ ही वह अथăदĔड से भी दĔडनीय होगा।” (ख) आवेदक के िवɳǪ आĕमहĕया के िलए ɭĤŠेरण का कोई भी तĕव अथवा आरोप धारा 107 भारतीय दĔड संिहता की पिरभाषा के अंतगăत नहȂ आता, िजसकी भाषा िनĞनिलिखत है— “धारा 107 – ɭĤŠेरण—कोई Dzिǘ िकसी कायă के करने के िलए ɭĤŠेरण करता है— Šथम – जब वह िकसी Dzिǘ को उस कायă के िलए उकसाता है; िDZतीय – या दो या दो से अिधक Dzिǘयȋ के साथ उस कायă के करने के िलए षǢंś करता है; तृतीय – या िकसी िŌया अथवा अवैध उपेWा DZारा उस कायă के करने मȅ जानबूझकर सहायता करता है।” (ग) उपयुăǘ तĖयȋ से Šथम ɯǸया, धारा 306 भारतीय दĔड संिहता के आवģयक घटक इस मामले मȅ पिरलिWत नहȂ होते, भले ही Šाथिमकी के सभी आरोप सĕय मान िलए जाएँ। धारा 306 भारतीय दĔड संिहता सहपिठत धारा 107 भारतीय दĔड संिहता के आवģयक तĕव पूणăतः अनुपिĥथत हȈ। आवेदक के मामलȅ मȅ मृतक को आĕमहĕया करने हेतु Šेिरत करने का कोई ŠĕयW या अŠĕयW संबंध अथवा कोई भी ‘लाइव िलक’ नहȂ पाया जाता। मृतक DZारा कोई भी सुसाइड नोट भी नहȂ छोíा गया है, िजससे याची की संिलĚतता का संके त िमले। तėनुसार, आवेदक के िवɴǪ धारा 306 भारतीय दĔड संिहता के आरोप आकिषत नहȂ होते, Ćयȋिक ɭĤŠेरण अथवा उकसावे हेतु आवģयक तĕव—इċछा, सहभािगता या उकसाने का कृ ĕय—Šाथिमकी के अवलोकन से कहȂ पिरलिWत नहȂ होते। उनके DZारा अपने तकă के समथăन मȅ उċचतम ęयायालय के िनĞन िनणăयȋ पर भरोसा िकया, िजनमȅ यह Šितपािदत िकया गया है िक धारा 306 भारतीय दĔड संिहता के तĕव इस Šकार की पिरिĥथितयȋ मȅ िसǪ नहȂ होते —(i) Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal (ii) Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (iii) Vijay Nath Dandiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra. उनका यह भी कथन है िक आवेदक ने इस माननीय ęयायालय के समW अनुċछेद 226 के तहत िरट यािचका संćया 31827 वषă 2018 Šĥतुत की थी, िजसमȅ िदनांक 31.10.2018 को अंतिरम आदेश पािरत ɷआ था। तथािप, िववेचना अिधकारी ने तĖयȋ एवं पिरिĥथितयȋ तथा पािरत अंतिरम आदेश की उपेWा करते ɷए आरोप-पś दािखल कर िदया और इस तĖय को ęयायालय के समW Šĥतुत िकया गया, िजसके पिरणामĥवɴप िरट यािचका िदनांक 24.02.2020 को िनĤŠभावी मानकर खािरज कर दी गई है। माननीय सवȌċच ęयायालय DZारा State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) मȅ िशकायत/Šाथिमकी को िनरĥत करने हेतु िजन पिरिĥथितयȋ एवं मापदंडȋ को िनधाăिरत िकया गया है, याची का मामला उन पिरिĥथितयȋ मȅ पूणăतः सिĞमिलत है, िजनमȅ—(1) Šाथिमकी का संपूणă कथन यिद सĕय मान भी िलया जाए तो भी िकसी अपराध का गठन नहȂ होता; (2)… अęय सभी मापदंड यथावत अनूिदत, (7) जहाँ कायăवाही ɭभाăवनापूणă या Dzिǘगत DZेषवश A482 No. 2065 of 2021 3 आरĞभ की गई हो। आवेदक का मामला उपयुăǘ िनणăय मȅ विणत पिरिĥथितयȋ के अंतगăत पूणă ɴप से आता है। उġलेखनीय तĖय यह भी है िक आवेदक के मौिलक अिधकार, जो संिवधान के अनुċछेद 14, 19 एवं 21 के अंतगăत संरिWत हȈ, गंभीर ɴप से Šभािवत हो रहे हȈ। अतः यह माननीय ęयायालय से Šाथăना है िक इस वाद को िविधसंगत ęयाय हेतु इस वाद की संपूणă कायăवाही खिĔडत करने का कृ पा करȅ। 8. िवDZान अपर शासकीय अिधवǘा DZारा यह तकă Šĥतुत िकया गया िक अिभयुǘ DZारा घटना के तĕसमय मृतक के साथ मारपीट व गाली-गलौज करने के कारण ही मृतक DZारा इससे WुĜध होकर उǘ घटना कािरत िकया गया, इसकी पिरपुिǸ ĥवतंś साWी के बयानȋ के अनुसार भी हो रही है, िकतु यह ĥवीकार िकया गया िक अिभयोजन के अôुसार मृतक के साथ लाठी-डĔडȋ के साथ मारपीट की गयी, िकतु मृतक शव िवċछेदन Šपś के अनुसार उसके शरीर पर कोई चोट नहȂ पायी गयी है। िजससे अिभयोजन कथानक का समथăन नहȂ हो रहा है। 9. ęयायालय DZारा उभय पW के िवDZान अिधवǘागण के तकȍ को सुना गया तथा तकȍ के पिरŠेĨय मȅ पśावली पर उपलĜध साĨय एवं Šģनगत आदेश का पिरशीलन िकया गया। 10. माननीय उċचतम ęयायालय ने Vaijnath Kondia Khandke Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another. मȅ Šितपािदत िविध-Dzवĥथा यहां Šासंिगक है, जो िनĞनवत हैः- "...6. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another the deceased was a driver who had undergone a bypass surgery and was advised against performing any stressful duties. The accused was a superior officer who had rebuked the deceased harshly and threatened to suspend him when the deceased had failed to comply with his directions. The deceased thereafter committed suicide and left behind a suicide note stating that the accused was solely responsible for his death. In these facts, this Court held that there must be allegations to the effect that the accused had either instigated the deceased in some way to commit suicide or had engaged with some other person in conspiracy to do so or that the accused had in some way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. The prayer for quashing preferred by the accused was accepted by this Court and the proceedings were quashed. 7. At the same time the facts in Praveen Pradhan v. State of A482 No. 2065 of 2021 4 Uttaranchal and another show that a junior officer was allegedly compelled by the superior to indulge in several wrongful practices at the work place; the junior officer was not comfortable in complying with such orders, as a result of which the junior officer was harassed and insulted on regular intervals and disgraced in front of the staff of the entire factory and rebuked with comments such as "had there been any other person in his place he would have died by hanging himself." The junior officer committed suicide leaving behind a note detailing all the incidents and asserting against his superior. In these circumstances prayer for quashing was rejected by this Court. 8. In the backdrop of these two lines of cases, we have gone through the material on record. There is no suicide note left behind by the deceased and the only material on record is in the form of assertions made by his wife in her reporting to the police. It is true that if a situation is created deliberately so as to drive a person to commit suicide, there would be room for attracting Section 306 IPC. However, the facts on record in the present case are completely inadequate and insufficient. As a superior officer, if some work was assigned by the applicant to the deceased, merely on that count it cannot be said that there was any guilty mind or criminal intent. The exigencies of work and the situation may call for certain action on part of a superior including stopping of salary of a junior officer for a month. That action simplicitor cannot be considered to be a pointer against such superior officer. The allegations in the FIR are completely inadequate and do not satisfy the requirements under Section 306 IPC. In our view, the facts in the present case stand on a footing better than that in Madan Mohan Singh (supra) and there is absolutely no room for invoking provisions of Section 306 IPC. We are of the firm view that the interest of justice demands that the proceedings initiated against the appellant are required to be quashed..." 11. माननीय उċचतम ęयायालय ने Netai Dutta Vs. State of W.B. मȅ Šितपािदत िविध A482 No. 2065 of 2021 5 -Dzवĥथा यहां Šासंिगक है, जो िनĞनवत हैः- "...5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note that the present appellant had caused any harm to him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working conditions at the h workplace. But, it may also be noticed that the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never joined the office at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two years and that the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot be said that the present appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of "abetment" have been stated in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The Explanation to Section 107 says that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment". 6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. A482 No. 2065 of 2021 6 7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal..." 12. माननीय उċचतम ęयायालय ने Netai Dutta Vs. State of W.B. मȅ Šितपािदत िविध -Dzवĥथा यहां Šासंिगक है, जो िनĞनवत हैः- "...6. The further complaint in that so-called suicide note appears to be that the driver was not given a fixed vehicle though all the drivers were given fixed vehicles to drive. There is also a complaint against one Raghunathan e suggesting that he misled the DGM and had given him a very bad vehicle to drive. By way of example, it was pointed out that the keys of the vehicle were taken in the absence of Incharge, M.K. Sovangya without giving any reasons verbally. Then he was not given any charge of the vehicle and running log-book. Thirdly, he was sent the transfer order by post. The attendance of the office staff was not maintained and he was transferred and the vehicle was f given to a regular labour. There is also a complaint about the salary of 15 days which was deducted by Madan Mohan Singh. A fair inquiry was sought for by the said driver. It was suggested that his retirement date was 25-12- 2012 and salary should be recovered from Madan Mohan Singh as he had harassed him without giving any concrete A482 No. 2065 of 2021 7 reason. 10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. 11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this. 12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question a of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide A482 No. 2065 of 2021 8 note. 13. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so-called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts b on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant-accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face c the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in the present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B.¹, this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused. 14. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages. all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult e for every superior officer even to work. 15. It was tried to be contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that at this stage, we should not go into the merits of the FIR or the said suicide note. It is trite law now that where there is some material A482 No. 2065 of 2021 9 alleged in the FIR, then such FIR and the ensuing proceedings should not be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. It is for this reason that we very closely examined the FIR to see whether it amounts to a proper complaint for the offence under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC. 16. Insofar as Section 294(b) IPC is concerned, we could not find a single word in the FIR or even in the so-called suicide note. Insofar as Section 306 IPC is concerned, even at the cost of repetition, we may say that merely because a person had a grudge against his superior officer and 9 committed suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under Section 306 IPC. It will still fall short of a proper allegation. It would have to be objectively seen whether the allegations made could reasonably be viewed as proper allegations against the appellant-accused to the effect that he had intended or engineered the suicide of the person concerned by his acts, words, etc. When we put the present FIR on this test, it falls short. 18. For all these reasons, we are of the clear opinion that the High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings. Allowing this appeal, we set aside the order of the High Court and allowing the petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by the appellant-accused, the questioned proceedings are quashed..." 13. यह भी Šासंिगक है िक यǯिप, दĔड Šिकया की धारा 320 मȅ उिġलिखत अपराधȋ के अितिरǘ िकसी अęय अपराध के समझौते का Šावधान नहȂ है, िफर भी कु छ मामलȋ मȅ पीिíता , भले ही अपराध असंयोजनीय (non-compoundable) हो, आरोिपत के आचरण को Wमा करने के िलए तैयार हो सकता है। ऐसे मामलȋ मȅ ęयायालय धारा 482 Cr.P.C. के अंतगăत अपनी िनिहत शिǘ का Šयोग कर सकता है, भले ही अपराध धारा 320 Cr.P.C. के अंतगăत संयोजनीय न हो। 14. वतăमान मामले मȅ, अिभलेख के अवलोकन करने पर यह ĥपǸ होता है िक अिभयोजन पW A482 No. 2065 of 2021 10 DZारा आवेदक पर मृतक को लाठी-डĔडȋ से मारने-पीटने का आWेप आरोिपत िकया गया, िकतु इसकी पिरपुिǸ मृतक के शव परीWण Šपś के अवलोकन से नहȂ हो रही है, Ćयȋिक मृतक के शरीर पर िकसी Šकार की चोट अथवा कोई भी चोट के िचęह नहȂ पाए गए। इससे पिरलिWत हो रहा है िक इस वाद की मूल आWेप िक आवेदक के DZारा मृतक के साथ मारपीट की गयी, िजससे WुĜध होकर मृतक DZारा उǘ घटना कािरत की गयी, उǘ मूल आWेप ही मृतक के शव परीWण Šपś के अôुसार पिरपुिǸ नहȂ हो रही है। इससे आवेदक के िवɴǪ धारा 306 भारतीय दĔड संिहता के आवģयक घटक इस मामलȅ मȅ पिरलिWत नहȂ हो रहे है तथा धारा 306 भारतीय दĔड संिहता सहपिठत धारा 107 भारतीय दĔड संिहता के आवģयक तĕव पूणăतः अनुपिĥथत हȈ। आवेदक के मामलȅ मȅ मृतक को आĕमहĕया करने हेतु Šेिरत करने का कोई ŠĕयW या अŠĕयW संबंध अथवा कोई भी ‘सिŌय संबंध’ नहȂ पाया गया और न ही मृतक DZारा कोई भी सुसाइड नोट छोíा गया है, िजससे याची की संिलĚतता का संके त िमले। तėनुसार, आवेदक के िवɴǪ धारा 306 भारतीय दĔड संिहता के आरोप आकिषत नहȂ होते, Ćयȋिक ɭɳŠेरण अथवा उकसावे हेतु आवģयक तĕव—इċछा, सहभािगता या उकसाने का कृ ĕय—Šाथिमकी के अवलोकन से कहȂ पिरलिWत नहȂ हो रहे है। उपयुăǘ तĖयȋ से यह आवेदन पś ĥवीकार िकये जाने योĈय पिरलिWत है। 15. तėनुसार, यह आवेदन ĥवीकार िकया जाता है। 16. अतः इस मामलȅ मȅ पśावली पर उपलĜध साĨयȋ तथा माननीय उċचतम ęयायालय DZारा उǘ उिġलिखत आदेशȋ मȅ Šितपािदत िविधक िĥथित को देखते ɷए उपरोǘ मामलȅ की समĥत कायăवाही अिभखिĔडत (quashed) की जाती है। 17. Šģनगत Šकरण मȅ यिद कोई अंतिरम आदेश हो तो उसे समाĚत समझा जाय। December 11, 2025 CP.sahani A482 No. 2065 of 2021 11 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH SAHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench