JUDGMENT This petition of revision is directed against the order dated 15.7.1997 whereby a charge u/s. 306 of the IPC has been framed against the petitioner/accused by Sessions Judge, Mandla in S.T. No. 27/1997 pending in that Court. Prosecution case, stated in brief, is that deceased Aradhana Bai was married to the son of the petitioner, namely, Purshottam in the year 1994. The petitioner Jhanak Lal used to doubt the character of deceased, his daughter-in-law and used to say that the deceased had illicit relations with a servant by name Purshottam Dhobi. He also used to say that the deceased Aradhana used to behave immodestly and had won over the ladies of the neighbourhood. Thus, feeling aggrieved by her character assassination by the petitioner, the deceased committed suicide by self-immolation. The learned trial Court, after consideration of the documents accompanying the charge-sheet, framed a charged u/s. 306 of the IPC against the petitioner for abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased Aradhana. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that even if all the allegations as disclosed from the documents produced by the prosecution are accepted, the offence u/s. 306 of the IPC is not made out. Reliance in this connection has been placed by him on Vedprakash Bhaiji v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1994 JLJ 758 ). It has been urged that since no act of the petitioner can be said to constitute instigation or intentionally aiding to the deceased Aradhana to commit suicide, the offence of abetment thereof is not even, prima facie, made out so as to justify framing of charge. It would be clear on perusal of the documents accompanying the charge-sheet that the allegation against the petitioner is that he used to nurture suspicion about the character of the deceased and used to talk about it in a taunting manner. Feeling hurt, the deceased committed suicide. The act as above of the accused/petitioner may be a reason or a ground for the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide, but it is clear that the above act on the part of the petitioner would not constitute abetment to commit suicide to the deceased. Clearly, therefore, the charge u/s. 306 of the IPC against the accused/petitioner was not justified. Accordingly, this petition of revision deserves to be allowed. The impugned-order is set aside and the accused-petitioner shall stand discharged.