s?i^i ?il'R:i1?T ?a7 3I^T **<i+. VSi :5 5' 3^ST '^l^ld^, »Tfly416, Rt^l+iy <S^:^:.?..:....}Ml!?..L Traw ( •s'OTKrc^feisn^! CR.M APPLICANT Vs NON-APPLICANTS S.D. Aged Rdput 1. 2.1 |5alokhe, S/'o Late $ymdeo Saiokhe, labout 58 years, RA> &-1, Civil Lines, ^ &istrict Raipur [C.6.] Present; Mr. Mateen Siddique, Mv. foi( the tipplicant 08 Per Dhirsndra Mishra. (29' Jj^ By this petition under proyed for qucshing of the No.737/06 pending in the Raipur. The compfainanl aileging therein that the app 9.3.2005, whereupon, she there the qiplicant asked Cburt- t/prose^utrix wentt' i^wfct'sfhi iwrcii tf.re^ '^R^R '^3JfOT3!I^( ,P. N0.188/2006 State of Chhaftisgarh, Through Mahila Police Station, Raipur (C.G.). Smt. Sarita Sharma (Coroptainant) W/o Late bineA Kumar 5harma, aged about 36 years, R/o through Shff Parmanand ShQrma, 240 FCX Colony, Changorbhata, Raipur (C.fi.) lU^O R &^ |5ection 482 of Cr.P.C. the cppliamt has prjosecution and reference of Criminaf Case of Judicial Magistrate First Ctass, todged the F.I.R. on 15.3.2005 licant had called her to his chamber on to his chamber along with her Jeth and she has ony objection, jf she is herl whether XI-HC—78 ^ 3ScT ^iW'ft^, ($'dlyi<S, islciiyy sn^r^ii^iN? •cmia^giiiw ES'?^aS^5^=?;'P:i' li'ra; (• wnw(if?g3ii^( 2-. ^Fri^Nh^s^'^'^St <i^i^R i?3iRn3ii^f appointed against the post of •Hie applicant stood up from ^ kiss her, which was resisted kf' account of shame and also d However, after pondering ove^ she does not resist cuid take make such attempt in future 15.3.2005. Learned counsel for thel had applied for compassionat^ Sovemor of the State, howj commiti'ee appointed by the Class-TEI post and +herefore| result of which a faise complai^t Moreover, there is no explana^ which has been lodged after s on the judgment of the Hon'i Dufta Vs. State of West argued that continuance of pt basis of above complaint woulc^ therefore, the whole proseajition quashed. ptass-IV. After she accepted -t+ie offer, [is chair, came near to her and tried to y her. She did not !odge the report' on lid not disclose the fnct to her Jeth. the whole siluation she thought that if |ippropriate action, then ony person can ^nd af+er this she lodgsd the report on cyplicduit subm'ts that the complainouit appointment, she atso cspproached the (ever, on the recommendation of the ^ppiicant, she could not quattfy agdinst she was offered Class-IV post, as a has been lodged against the opplicant. rton for the deloy in todging the report, |x days of the incident. Placing relionce le Apex Court in the matter of Netai reported AIR 2005 SC 17^, it is ^osecution against the applicant on the amount to abuse of process of law cnd agdnst the appticant shoutd be Bej^ot "^s -^- I-HC—'; 3^? "yi^i^, tSTfly'ie, fsi(rti'y^< sv^vfviw ^TF ^I^T ?fi^icn f S^iS^v ^raq; ( wnwafsa ail^i •z ^OTferah'WRff^ wsiRm 40 trte I have heard learned From perusal of the under Section 354 of the IPC by leamed counsel for the that case the offence under the basis of suicide note Supreme Cour!- considering a conclusion that even if +he be true,then atso it does not| in the instont case the a!leg4 under Section 354 of 1PC1 prosecution is made out. In the result^ the be dismissed and it is hereby cjiunsel for the applicant. dlegations made in the FIR, on offence is clearly made out. The judgment cited 4pplicant is distmguishabie on facts as in |5ection 306 of the IPC was registered on i?f ttie deceased, however, the Hon'ble contents of the suicide note arrived at leontents of the suicide note are taken to |constitute abetment to suicide. However, jil.tion made m the FIR constitute offence therefore, no caiss for quashing the petitfon has no substance, +he same is tiabte to [lismissed at the admission stage itself.