JUDGMENT The petitioners are facing trial for offence u/s 306 r/w section 34 of the IPC alongwith other co-accused persons in S.T. No. 40/1995, which is pending before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Madla. Charges as above have been framed against the accused/petitioners. The facts leading to the present case are that deceased Mehboob was a tenant and residing at Mahantwada, District Mandla. It is alleged that on account of dispute between the children, the accused/petitioner No. 1 Ramchandra lodged a report at P.S. Mandla. P.S. Mandla used to call the deceased Mehboob at the Police Station frequently. The deceased felt harassed on account of such frequent calls. He suspected the accused/petitioner and other co-accused were responsible for harassing him in the above manner. His wife left the village alongwith his children. The deceased committed suicide by drowning himself in the river. A suicidal note was found in his pocket in which he named the persons, including that of petitioners who used to harass him, due to which he was led to commit suicide. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged there is no evidence that the accused/petitioners abetted commission of suicide by the deceased. The allegations in the suicidal note regarding harassment are non-specific and vague. Moreover, the calling of the deceased by .the police at the Police Station for inquiry was not on account of the petitioner. It has also been urged that some of the co-accused Kodulal and Kandhilal, who were also named in the written suicidal note have been discharged by order dated 22.10.1997 In Cr. Revision No. 588/1995. It is submitted that the petitioner's case is on similar footing to that of the said discharged accused Kodulal and Kandhilal. On going through the statement of Fatima the wife of the deceased, it would appear that the dispute between the deceased and petitioner was mainly on account of quarrel between the daughter of petitioner No. 1 Ramchandra and the son of the deceased. The report of the said quarrel was lodged by petitioner No. 1 and the deceased felt harassed as he was being frequently called by the police at the Police Station in connection with that report. Even if the suicidal note is accepted, it does not disclose that the petitioners abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The report of the said quarrel was lodged by petitioner No. 1 and the deceased felt harassed as he was being frequently called by the police at the Police Station in connection with that report. Even if the suicidal note is accepted, it does not disclose that the petitioners abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. It may be noticed, in this connection, that the deceased had mentioned in the suicide note itself that he was also indisposed and he was mentally upset. Probably feeling perturbed the deceased in a weak moment decided to end his life. But, if this be so, the petitioner cannot be said to have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In the circumstances, this petition of revision u/s 397 r/w section 401 of the CrPC deserves to be allowed and the petitioners deserve to be discharged. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.7.1995 in S.T. No. 40/1995 framing charge u/s 306 r/w section 34 of the IPC against the accused/petitioners is set aside. They stand discharged.