As per case facts, the deceased was engaged to Accused No.1, but their engagement was called off due to his addictions and infidelity. Subsequently, the deceased became acquainted with another ... person and created videos that Accused No.1 allegedly accessed and shared, causing the deceased extreme distress, which led her to commit suicide. The FIR was registered under Sections 306, 506(2), 114 IPC and Section 67(e)(a) of the IT Act. The applicant, Accused No.3, is the younger brother of Accused No.1 and was not present in India at the time of the incident. Moreover, the parents of the deceased turned hostile, stating their daughter suffered from depression and denying that Accused No.1's actions caused her suicide. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted, and a settlement was reached between the complainant and the applicant. The question arose whether the FIR and consequential proceedings against the applicant should be quashed given the lack of incriminating evidence, his absence from the country, the complainant's settlement, and the acquittal of the co-accused. Finally, the Court found that the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC for abetment to suicide were not met. There was no direct evidence to implicate the applicant, and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of legal process. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the FIR against the applicant was quashed.