( 2025:HHC:13814 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.340 of 2023 Reserved on: 24.04.2025 Date of Decision: 14.05.2025.

Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Aditya Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1.

M/s. Suchitra Sen, Legal Aid Counsel & Deepa, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No.54/2022, dated 22.03.2022, registered at Police Station Barmana, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

...2... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ("in short IPC ") and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant had gone to Anandpur on 10.03.2022 with the Truck bearing registration No. HP-24D-1272. He returned to his home on 12.03.2022 at 10:30 pm. He was informed by Anil Kumar that Savitri Devi (since deceased) had called him and told him that petitioners - Sanjeev Kumar, Kala Devi and Anjana Kumari had given beatings to her. They also threatened and abused her.

The informant was told by his father at about 07:00 am that Savitri Devi had been missing since 13.03.2022. Search was made for Savitri Devi, but she could not be found. The matter was reported to police, and a missing report was registered on 14.03.2022. The dead body of Savitri Devi was found on 22.03.2022. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The postmortem ...3... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) examination of the dead body was conducted, and a report was issued stating that the hanging pattern was symptomatic and consistent with partial suicidal hanging. The viscera were preserved and sent for chemical analysis. However, no alcohol or poison was detected in the viscera. As per the final report, the death had taken place due to strangulation caused by compression of the neck. The petitioners had abused and threatened Savitri Devi, and she committed suicide due to the threats and abuses. Hence, the charge sheet was filed before the Court.

3. Being aggrieved by the filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioners have approached this Court, asserting that they are innocent and were falsely implicated. The petitioners had a verbal altercation with the deceased over keeping the woods, which lasted for less than five minutes.

Petitioner No.1 intervened and took the other petitioners inside the house. The deceased also went to her home. She left her home on 13.03.2022. A ...4... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) missing report was lodged on 14.03.2022, and the dead body was recovered on 22.03.2022. The time lapse between the incident and the recovery of the dead body rules out the abetment of suicide. Police did not conduct a proper investigation. A false case for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC was made out against the petitioners. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the police do not show that the petitioners had beaten, abused and threatened the deceased. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The dead body recovered by the police did not belong to Savitri Devi.

No DNA analysis was conducted. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners had abetted the commission of the suicide by the deceased. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by respondent No.1 by filing a reply. The contents of the FIR were ...5... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) reproduced in the reply. It was asserted that the informant had specifically stated that Savitri Devi committed suicide due to a quarrel with the petitioners. A supplementary charge sheet has been filed, which shows that the DNA profile obtained from the tooth of Savitri Devi matched the DNA profile of Subhash Chand. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. A separate reply was filed by respondent No.2 denying the contents of the petition. It was asserted that a thorough investigation was conducted by the police, and the charge sheet was filed against the petitioners. There is sufficient material before the Court to connect the petitioners to the commission of a crime. The deceased remained in shock after 12.03.2022. There is no material contradiction in the statements recorded by the police. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have heard Mr. Aditya Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned ...6... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1 -State and M/s. Suchitra Sen, Legal Aid Counsel and Deepa, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7. Mr. Aditya Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. There is nothing on record to connect the petitioners with the commission of crime. No eyewitness reported the exact words used during the quarrel. The time elapsed between the incident and the recovery of the dead body would rule out the abetment by the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be ordered to be quashed. He relied upon Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2002) AIR(SCW) 2023 & Shabir Hussain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2021) 3 Apex Court Judgments (SC) 250 in support of his submission.

8. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State, submitted that ...7... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) the police conducted the investigation and found sufficient material to file a charge-sheet against the petitioners. The deceased had called Anil Kumar and informed him about her mental condition, which shows that the deceased was stressed due to the quarrel with the petitioners. The quarrel was the proximate cause of the commission of suicide. He prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

9. M/s Suchitra Sen, Legal Aid Counsel & Deepa, learned counsel, for respondent No.2, adopted the submission of learned Deputy Advocate General, and prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

10. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

11. The law relating to quashing of FIR was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P. , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: -

(emphasis added)

8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case.

In clause (1) it has been mentioned that 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, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed.

As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed. Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be quashed."

...11... ( 2025:HHC:13814 )

12. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed:

13 It was held in Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi ), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, that the power to quash a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly and not routinely. It was observed: -

14. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

15. The FIR was registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. Section 306 of the IPC provides for the abetment of suicide. This section was explained by ...13... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 216: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 329: 2024 INSC 156 as under:

is "a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction" (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts"

Undoubtedly, the presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.

69. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court after referring to some of the previous decisions held that it has been the consistent view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative to put an end to her life. It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable. Thereafter, this Court held as under:

Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

70. Similar is the view expressed by this court in Ude Singh (supra).

71. In Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 359, this Court after referring to Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC held as follows:

Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

72. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (supra), this Court observed that abetment would involve a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a ...18... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) 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. Delineating the intention of the legislature and having regard to the ratio of the cases decided by this Court, it was concluded that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

73. Sounding a note of caution, this Court in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73 observed that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

...19... ( 2025:HHC:13814 )

16. This position was reiterated in Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra , 2024 INSC 519:2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701 wherein it was observed:

10. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. (2010) 1 SCC 707, this court explained the parameters of Section 306 in the following words:

11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, while explaining the meaning of 'Instigation', this court stated that:

12. These principles and necessary ingredients of Section 306 and 107 of the Penal Code, 1860 were reiterated and summarized by this court in the recent case ...22... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200."

17. A similar view was taken by this Court in Devender Singh (supra) wherein it was observed:

The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: -

40. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vipin Jaiswal 's case (supra), in the absence of any specific allegation, like, the date, or time of the incident much credence to the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-

...24... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) 3 cannot be given, as the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was treated with cruelty and harassment by the accused persons in connection with demand of dowry.

56. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions reveals that to justify the framing of charges under Section 306 IPC, the following ingredients must be established: (i) death due to suicide ; (ii) accused abets the commission of suicide.

57. The word 'suicide' is not defined in IPC . However, the meaning and import thereof was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the word 'suicide' is not defined in the Indian Penal Code . However, its meaning and import is well known. The word 'sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing'. In other words, the act must have been so intended to push the deceased into a situation that the deceased is driven to commit suicide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17 held as under:

58. What is abetment, was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another (2010) 12 SCC 190 and elaborated the meaning of 'abetment' in paras 25 of the judgment as under:

59. What is 'instigation', was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh , (2001) 9 SCC 618, and defined the meaning of instigation in para 20 of its report, which reads thus:

60. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave interpretation to the words 'abetment' and 'instigation' in the following manner:

...27... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) "6. Section 107 I.P.C defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, 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, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. , 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under: (SCC p.731, para1) "My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in- law. Because of these reasons and being harassed, I want to die by burning."

10. This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107 I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court ...28... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment is attracted on the statement of the deceased.

11. In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate , in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said: (SCC p.620) "A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that ...29... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July 1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased 'to go and die'. For this, the courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is annexed as annexure P3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him 'to go and die'. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. The presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge ...30... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) that the words uttered in a quarrel or a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25th July 1998 ensued by quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27 th July 1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25th July 1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27th July 1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25th July 1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27th July 1998 would itself point out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taking place on 25th July 1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped the notice of the courts below."

61. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self- respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the ...31... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) basis of its own facts and circumstances. It is apt to reproduce paras 16 and 17 of the judgment which read thus:-

62. In Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal and another (2012) 9 SCC 734, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. A reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being spelt out. A continued course of conduct which creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide would satisfy the ingredients of instigation to commit suicide or abetment of suicide. It is apt to reproduce paras 16 to 18 of the judgment which read as under: -

12. In Analendu Pal Alis Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 dealing with the expression of abetment the Court observed:-

13. As we find from the narration of facts and the material brought on record in the case at hand, it is the suicide note which forms the fulcrum of the allegations and for proper appreciation of the same, we have reproduced it herein-before. On a plain reading of the same, it is difficult to hold that there has been any abetment by the respondents. The note, except saying that the respondents compelled him to do everything and cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contains nothing else. The respondents were inferior in rank and it is surprising that such a thing could happen. That apart, the allegation is really vague. It also baffles reason, for the department had ...37... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) made him the head of the investigating team and the High Court had reposed complete faith in him and granted him the liberty to move the court, in such a situation, there was no warrant to feel cheated and to be put in trouble by the officers belonging to the lower rank. That apart, he has also put the blame on the Chief Judicial Magistrate by stating that he had put pressure on him. He has also made the allegation against the Advocate.

17. We have quoted in extenso from the said judgment and we have no hesitation in stating that the suicide note therein was quite different, and the Court did think it appropriate to quash the proceedings because of the tenor and nature of the suicide note.

Thus , the said decision is distinguishable regard being had to the factual score exposited therein."

64. Thus, what can be taken to be settled is that the abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.

65. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Versus State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 512, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that harassment must be coupled with some positive action proximate to the time of occurrence. In the absence of proof of such proximate action on the part of the accused, he or she cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and for the commission of such an offence, the ...38... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) person who is said to have abetted the commission of the offence of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of offence of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by a person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. Paragraph 16 of the said report is reproduced as under: -

66. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randhir Singh and another Versus State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 has reiterated the legal position as regards Section 306 IPC in paragraphs 12 and 13, which read as thus: -

67. Therefore, what is required is that unless there is a positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused persons, which alone compels the person to commit suicide, conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. The legal position has recently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mariano Anto Bruno and another Versus Inspector of Police, AIR 2022 ...40... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) Supreme Court 4994, wherein, vide paragraphs 25 and 26, it was observed as under:-

26. In order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge bench of this Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana8 observed as under: -

...41... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of the cause of suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/ reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted the commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the ...42... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snapshot of anger, ...43... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."

18. It was not disputed in the petition that the petitioners had quarrelled with the deceased. The police recorded the statement of Anil Kumar in which he stated that he had called Savitri Devi, who revealed that she had a quarrel with her neighbours on 11.03.2022. She was distressed, and her head was aching badly. She was sad and wanted to end her life.

She was in litigation with the petitioners. Anil Kumar counselled her and advised her not to do anything. He again tried to call her, but his call was not picked up.

...44... ( 2025:HHC:13814 )

19. This was the statement made by the deceased regarding her state of mind after the incident. It clearly shows that the deceased was distressed due to the quarrel with the petitioner, and she wanted to end her life. Therefore, there is sufficient material on record to show the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of crime.

20. It was submitted that the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet are false, and there are various contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. This submission will not help the petitioners. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. cannot conduct a mini-

trial to determine the truthfulness of falsehood of the allegation. This position was laid down in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, wherein it was held: -

21. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand , (2025) 1 SCC 392: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1894 that the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, cannot conduct a mini-

trial. It was observed at page 397:

The relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted hereunder: (SCC paras 6-7)

6. ... As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the ...47... ( 2025:HHC:13814 ) criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. ...

7. ... At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider 'whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not'."

22. A similar view was taken in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat , (2018) 3 SCC 104:

23. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The learned Trial Court is seized of the matter. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P. , (2023) 8 SCC 734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 that when the charge sheet has been filed, the learned Trial Court should be left to appreciate the same. It was observed:

24. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2002) AIR(SCW) 2023 & Shabir Hussain Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2021) 3 Apex Court Judgment(SC) 250. However, these judgments will not help the petitioners' case because of the categorical statement made by Anil Kumar in the present case.

Thus, no advantage can be derived from the cited judgments.

25. No other point was urged.

...51... ( 2025:HHC:13814 )

26. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. The observation made hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 14th May, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)