noted that, the dissolution deed was executed on 16/11/2013 in between petitioner No. 4 and late Yuvraj. Petitioner No. 1 to 3 are not party to the said deed of partnership or dissolution. Upon perusal of investigation papers, it is noticed that, petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 have no role in the commission of alleged crime of abating suicide by deceased Yuvraj. It is required to be noted that, payment of four cheques and honouring thereof is very much admitted by respondent No. 2 in the complaint itself. Once it is admitted that an amount around Rs. 15,00,000/- was paid to deceased Yuvraj in the month of September 2013, dissolution deed was executed in the month of November 2013, it is really hard to digest that, there was any mens rea on the part of the petitioners in commission of crime in question. It is also required to be noted that, only role attributed to petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 is that, they have abused late Yuvraj on 23/02/2014. Even if the said incident is taken to be true, it is not the case that at that moment, Yuvraj immediately committed suicide. Yuvraj has committed suicide on 24/02/2014 that too in the evening. It is also required to be noted that, respondent No. 2 was not witness to alleged threat given to Yuvraj on 23/02/2014. It is also required to be noted that, the statement of the witness particularly that of wife of deceased namely Kavita, though initially speaks of cordial relations as regards partnership of petitioner No. 4 including that of proper maintenance of account of the business, she has stated that, her
