Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Exercise of power under, scope – Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased, the driver of accused-second respondent committed suicide – In the suicide note, he had made serious and grave allegations against the accused second respondent of amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income and a detailed account of the role of the accused in the events which led to the deceased committing suicide – Second respondent successfully filed s.482 application for quashing the criminal proceedings – Hence the instant appeal – Held: High Court while exercising its power under s.482 should have applied the following two tests: i) whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie constituted an offence; and ii) whether the allegations were so improbable that a prudent man would not arrive at the conclusion that there was sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint – Rather, High Court stalled the investigation by granting an interim order of stay – The alleged suicide was of a person who was working as a driver of a Special Land Acquisition Officer against whom serious and grave allegations of amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income were made by the deceased and a detailed account of the role of the accused in the events which led to the deceased committing suicide – These were matters of investigation and possibly trial – If the investigation had been allowed to proceed, there would have been a revelation of material facts which would have aided in the trial, for the alleged offence against the second respondent – High Court tested the veracity of the allegations in the criminal complaint and in the suicide note left behind by the deceased without having the benefit of an evidentiary record which would be collected during the trial – At the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing under s.482, the High Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations nor for that matter can it proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of trial – High Court virtually proceeded to hold a trial, substituting its own perception for what it believed should or should not have been the normal course of human behavior – This is clearly impermissible – The entire judgment of the High Court consists of a litany of surmises and conjectures and such an exercise is beyond the domain of proceeding under s.482 – High Court had proceeded to scrutinize what has been disclosed during the investigation, ignoring that the investigation had been stayed by an interim order of the High Court, during the pendency of the proceedings under s.482 – Petition for quashing FIR dismissed – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306. Mental Health: The High Court while deciding merits of s.482 Cr.P.C petition has made observations diminishing the importance of mental health – Mental health of an individual cannot be compressed to a one size fit all approach.