ORDER Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 24-3-2006 passed by Shri N. K. Chandrawanshi, IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial Number 24/2006 whereby charge under Section 305 of the IPC was framed against the applicant. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the applicant was serving as a driver in the house of one Smt. Sheela Verma. He was convicted in Sessions Trial Number 298/ 2003 for committing rape on Ku. Aakansha Verma, daughter of Smt Sheela Verma and also sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine. The applicant was on bail during trial. It is alleged that the applicant used to intimidate Ku. Aakansha Verma through telephone calls. Crime Number 76/2004 was registered under Section 507 of I.P.C. against the applicant and after investigation prosecution was launched. The applicant continued to intimidate Ku. Aakansha Verma by threatening that he would take revenge and would kill her and her mother. The intimidation went on to such an extent that Ku. Aakansha Verma got completely demoralised and stopped going to school and lived under depression. On 21-9-2004 Ku, Aakansha Verma committed suicide by hanging herself In the room. During investigation of merg, Smt. Sheela Verma narrated that since 18-9-2004 Ku, Aakansha Verma was living under depression and was under tremendous fear. On being asked, she had started crying and told her that the applicant had made her survival difficult. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of the material produced by the prosecution, framed charge under Section 305 of I.P.C. against the applicant herein. 3. Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has argued that even if the entire documents under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. were accepted at its face value, a charge under Section 305 of I.P.C. was not made out even prima facie against the applicant since, there was no material to show that soon before the commission of suicide by Ku. Aakansha Verma, the applicant had in any manner threatened or intimidated her. P.C. were accepted at its face value, a charge under Section 305 of I.P.C. was not made out even prima facie against the applicant since, there was no material to show that soon before the commission of suicide by Ku. Aakansha Verma, the applicant had in any manner threatened or intimidated her. Reliance was placed on Mahendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh with Gayatribai v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1995 AIR SCW 4570 : 1996 Cri LJ 894; Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 AIR SCW 2035 : 2002 Cri LJ 2796; Mamta Sahu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2006 (1) Crimes 11; Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. 2002 Cri LJ 2233 (All); Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal 2005 AIR SCW 1326 : 2005 Cri LJ 1737. On the other hand, Shri Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lawyer placed reliance on the State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh and State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar and argued in support of the impugned order. 4. It is settled law that in order to frame charge, the material placed by the prosecution before the trial Judge must be such that if it is accepted at its face value, it would establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. Thus in order to frame charge under Section 305 of I.P.C., the material placed by the prosecution before the trial Judge must be such that if it is accepted at its face value, it would establish that the commission of suicide by Ku. Aakansha Verma, a girl below 18 years of age was the direct and proximate cause of the abetment or Instigation offered by the applicant. 5. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of I.P.C. as under: 107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who- Firstly- 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, in doing of that thing. Explanation 1.- 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. 6. In the State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh , the Apex Court held that (para 8) Where the husband or his relative by his wilful conduct creates a situation which he knows will drive the woman to commit suicide and she actually does so, the case would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 306 of I.P.C. In such a case the conduct of the person would tantamount to inciting or provoking or virtually pushing the woman into a desperate situation of no return which would compel her to put an end to her miseries by committing suicide.... An atmosphere of terror was created to push her into taking the extreme step. It would seem that it was a carefully chalked out strategy to provoke her into taking the extreme step to kill herself and her children as she apprehended that they will be much more miserable after she is dead and gone. Can it be said that the husband did not realise where he was leading her by his wilful conduct? We think in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court had rightly convicted the husband under Section 306 of I.P.C. 7. It is not disputed that Ku. Aakansha Verma was a girl below 18 years of age at the time of incident, Testing the material led by the prosecution before the trial Judge on the above touchstone, there is overwhelming material to show that after committing rape on Ku. Aakansha Verma, the appellant had made her life miserable due to constant threats. The statement of Smt. Sheela Verma, mother of the deceased and the statement of Ku. Roshni, friend of Ku. Aakansha Verma and the documents produced clearly show that the appellant had been intimidating Ku. Aakansha Verma to such an extent that she was living in a stage of depression, It is also borne out that the applicant was prosecuted for an offence under Section 507 of I.P.C. for intimidating Ku. Roshni, friend of Ku. Aakansha Verma and the documents produced clearly show that the appellant had been intimidating Ku. Aakansha Verma to such an extent that she was living in a stage of depression, It is also borne out that the applicant was prosecuted for an offence under Section 507 of I.P.C. for intimidating Ku. Aakansha Verma by sending anonymous communication through telephone or S.M.S. Thus, the material produced by the prosecution clearly shows that after having been subjected to rape, Ku. Aakansha Verma was continuously intimidated by the applicant to such an extent that she went into the stage of depression and was under fear that the applicant would take revenge. Thus, there is not even an iota of doubt that if the material produced by the prosecution is accepted at its face value, it would show that the act of suicide committed by Ku. Aakansha Verma was the direct and proximate cause of the abetment or instigation offered by the applicant. 8. In the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (2002 Cri LJ 2796) (supra) cited by the learned senior counsel for the applicant, the facts were that besides the suicidal note left by the deceased, there was no other evidence to constitute ingredients of abetment against the appellant. However, in the present case there is overwhelming material on record to show that the applicant had instigated the commission of suicide by Ku. Aakansha Verma. 9. The argument of Shri P. K. C. Tiwari, Senior Advocate that the material produced by the prosecution does not show that soon before the commission of suicide, the applicant had abated or instigated Ku. Aakansha Verma to commit suicide cannot be accepted. The statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. of Smt. Sheela Verma and Ku. Roshni and also the material collected during investigation clearly shows that due to repeated intimidation by the applicant-Ku. Aakansha Verma was living in a stage of fear. Despite his conviction under Section 376 of I.P.C, and the prosecution under Section 507 of I.P.C., the applicant did not desist from repeatedly intimidating Ku. Aakansha Verma. The exact nature of intimidation and the mental status in which Ku. Aakansha lived prior to commission of suicide would be unfolded during the evidence to be led by the prosecution. Despite his conviction under Section 376 of I.P.C, and the prosecution under Section 507 of I.P.C., the applicant did not desist from repeatedly intimidating Ku. Aakansha Verma. The exact nature of intimidation and the mental status in which Ku. Aakansha lived prior to commission of suicide would be unfolded during the evidence to be led by the prosecution. Therefore, merely on the abovementioned ground, the charge under Section 305 of I.P.C. framed by the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted with. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar held that merely on the ground that deceased was accused of stealing 10 grams of gold 20 days prior to the commission of suicide, charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. could not be quashed by the High Court. It was held that whether it was so or not will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence which the prosecution may present before the Court. 10. Placing reliance on the State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh and State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order framing the charge under Section 305 of I.P.C. against the applicant herein is well founded and does not call for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 11. In the result, this criminal revision has no merit and is dismissed at the stage of admission.