ORDER 1. Heard on admission. Heard finally at motion stage. On 15th January, 2006 one teacher Satish Chandra Saxena committed suicide by hanging. This merg was reported to the police on which enquiry was conducted and the police came to the conclusion that the petitioner had advanced loan to the deceased at the rate of 10% interest and the deceased was annoyed by the demands of loan made by the petitioner, hence he committed suicide. FIR was registered at crime No. 116/06 and as informed by Shri Dixit the investigation has been completed. This action of the police has been impugned by the petitioner vide this petition. 2. During the course of arguments Shri Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court on the following judgments: 1. Sanju @ Sanjay Singh v. State of M.P. [ 2002 (2) JLJ 275 = 2002 CAR 255 (SC)]. 2. Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731]. 3. Ajay Patodia v. State of M.P. [ 2003 (II) MPWN 153 = 2003 (3) Crimes 543 ]. 4. Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of M.P. [ 2003 (1) MPWN 34 ]. 5. Mamta Sahu v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2006 (1) Crimes 11]. and has submitted that if the allegation of advancing loan on 10% interest coupled with the fact of demand made by the petitioner from the deceased, is taken into consideration merely on this ground no offence as provided under section 306 of IPC is made out. 3. Countering the contentions Shri Dixit has read over the statements of witness Smt. Kiran Saxena, the widow of the deceased as well as witness Jagdish the colleague of the deceased and has submitted that it has been alleged against the petitioner that due to the demand of loan the deceased committed suicide. 4. The FIR and the aforesaid statements of the witness recorded during investigation have been perused, which are available in the case diary. In report there is no allegation against the petitioner. 4. The FIR and the aforesaid statements of the witness recorded during investigation have been perused, which are available in the case diary. In report there is no allegation against the petitioner. The relevant part of the statement of witness Smt. Kiran Saxena the widow of the deceased is as under: ^^esjs ifr dks pkS/kjh izdk’kpan tSu tks 10 izfr’kr C;kt ij :i;k nsrs Fks esjs ifr vius osru ls djhc vk/kk osru C;kt ds :i esa 10 izfr’kr ds fglkc ls pkS/kjh izdk’kpan tSu ¼pkpk½ dks gj ekg nsrs jgrs Fks blh dkj.k vk/kh gh ru[okg eq>s nsrs FksA ftlls ?kj dk [kpkZ ugha pyrk Fkk cky cPps ugha iy ikrs Fks ml le; nks pkj fnu yxkrkj Qksu pkS/kjh izdk’kpan tSu dk Qksu iSlksa ds rdkts dks gh vkrs Fks ftls dHkh esjs ifr ,oa dHkh esjs }kjk lquk tkrk Fkk ftlls esjs ifr ges’kk fopfyr jgrs FksA 1 tuojh 2006 ls rks yxHkx jkstkuk Qksu vkuk ‘kq: gks x;k pkS/kjh izdk’kpan tSu dk fnukad 13-1-2006 dks lqcg Qksu vk;k tks esjs ifr us esjs lkeus mBk;k ftlesa mlus iSlks dks rdktk fd;k esjs ifr us dgk fd fo’okl djks vHkh osru ugha feyk gS eSa 15-1-2006 dks vkdj iSlk ns tkÅaxk fQj lqcg 15-1-2006 dks lqcg lqcg Qksu vk;k tks esjh cPph lksfu;k us mBk;k rks izdk’kpan cksy jgk gwa vkSj cPph us crk;k fd dg jgs Fks fd ekLVj lkc dgka gS rc cPph us dgk fd Ýs’k gksus x;s gSa] mlds ckn Qksu dkV fn;k fQj brokj dk fnu djhc 1%30 cts ¼Ms<+ cts½ fQj Qksu vk;k rks esjs ifr us Qksu mBk;k rc eSa Hkh ogha Fkh rks esjs ifr us dgk fd pkpk fo’okl djks vHkh osru ugha vk;k gS vkSj eSaus lquk fd osru ugha vk;k rks fQj esjs ?kjokys cksys fd eSa D;k d:¡ ej tkÅ¡ D;k vkSj dgk fd lksp yks eq>s iSlk pkfg, ugah rks eSa rqEgkjh cPph dh ‘kknh ugha gksus nwaxk rc esjs cksys cPph dh ‘kknh rks d:axk Hkys&gh eq>s ejuk iM+s rks cksys fd Hkys&gh rqe ej tkvks ysfdu eq>s :i;k pkfg,A**--------- The relevant part of the statement of witness Jagdish is as under :- ^^--------------- Jh lrh’kpan lDlsuk dks ysus nsu Jh izdk’kpan tSu ls pyrk jgrk Fkk ysfdu izdk’kpan tSu 10 izfr’kr C;kt ls :i;k nsrs Fks rFkk osru feyus ij C;kt rFkk :i;k rqjar ysrs Fks rdktk cgqr djkZ gksrk Fkk iSlk fcuk fy[kki<+h ds ugha nsrs Fks ;fn iSlk ugha fn;k rks foHkkx dks fy[kki<+h rFkk dksbZ dks /kedh nsrs ---------------** 5. On perusal of the facts mentioned herein above, it appears that the deceased committed suicide and that act of the deceased has been connected with the money transaction in between the deceased and petitioner. The provision of section 306 IPC provides that "306. Abetment of suicide. -- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the comission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." Another concerning provision, section 107 of IPC which deals with the definition of the abetment goes as under - "107. Abetment of a thing. -- A person abets the doing of a thing who - First.-- Instigates any person to do that thing: or Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation :-- A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing." As it appears, while reading the afore quoted provisions for establishing the offence punishable under section 306 IPC, it requires that it is to be abetted by some one and the act of the person comes under the purview of definition of section 107 of IPC as quoted here in above. The act as alleged against the petitioner does not amount the instigation giving by him to the deceased for committing suicide, nor it can be said that the petitioner had intentionally aided in any manner in commission of the suicide by the deceased. Simple act of demanding of loan cannot be considered as an abetment for committing suicide, particularly in the facts of this case. In similar set of facts where a sum of money was demanded for recruitment, which was refused. In consequences the deceased was not recruited - he committed suicide. Simple act of demanding of loan cannot be considered as an abetment for committing suicide, particularly in the facts of this case. In similar set of facts where a sum of money was demanded for recruitment, which was refused. In consequences the deceased was not recruited - he committed suicide. In Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [ 1995 CrLJ 3066 ] it has been observed by the High Court of Rajasthan that no offence is made out. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh v. State of M.P. [ 2002 (2) JLJ 275 = 2002 CAR 255 (SC)] a loan was advanced to the petitioner by the deceased and that was not paid despite demand the deceased committed suicide. When the Hon'ble apex Court was considering the case of these facts, in para 9 another case, decided by the Hon'ble apex Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731] was referred in which it was observed- "My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of those reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning." 6. The case of Ajay Patodia v. State of M.P. [ 2003 (II) MPWN 153 = 2003 (3) Crimes 543 ] and in the case of Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma v.State of M.P. [ 2003 (I) MPWN 34 ] while dealing with similar facts, it has been observed that no such offence is made out in the case of Mamta Sahu v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2006 (1) Crimes 11]. 7. In view of all this, the existence of FIR Crime No. 116/06 dated 17.7.2006 registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC, appears to be an abuse of the legal process, hence the same is hereby quashed.