ORDER B.M. Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner by Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate. Respondent/State by Shri R.D. Agrawal, P. L. Heard finally at motion stage. 2. This revision is for impugning the order dated 18th July, 2007 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No. 107/07, whereby the learned Judge has framed charge against the petitioner along with other co-accused person for the offence punishable under section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. On perusal of the FIR registered at Crime No. 376/06 at police Station, City Kotwali, Dist. Bhind, it appears that deceased Nirmalchand Jain obtained a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from co-accused Badri Prasad through the petitioner. Out of this loan, despite payment of rupees six lacs, the principal amount was remained unpaid. The petitioner and co-accused Badriprasad were harassing the deceased on demand of loan. On account of that, he committed suicide by hanging. 4. Shri Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn attention at post-mortem report and the statement of Vinod Kumar, by which it appears that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. He has further drawn attention at the statement of Rajkumar Jain, Pawan Kumar, Basant Jain and Raja Beti, the widow of the deceased, and submitted that the statement of all these family members are similar on every point. He has gone through the statement of Rajkumar Jain who has stated that the deceased along with the petitioner and co-accused Badriprasad purchased a land in rupees five lacs. His father obtained a loan, to contribute his share, from Satya Setia and Brijendra Singh Tomar. The land purchased was divided into 42 plots which were to be sold by the petitioner who played dishonesty in selling of the plots. The persons from whom the loan was obtained were harassing his father. On account of this fact, when the deceased could not pay the loan, he committed suicide. Shri Sharma has submitted that on these facts, the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not made out If any deceit was played by the petitioner in dealing of the land, deceased could have taken legal steps. By that act of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the deceased was instigated by the petitioner to commit suicide. By that act of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the deceased was instigated by the petitioner to commit suicide. In support, he has drawn attention on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta vs. State of W. B., 2005 SCC (Cri) 543 and on the orders of this Court rendered in Paramjeetsingh Chawala vs. State of M.P., 2007 Cri.L.J. 3343 and on the order Ajay Patodiya vs. State of M.P., 2003 (4) MPLJ 195 : 2004 Cri.L.J. 197. 5. As per Record, The loan was not obtained from the petitioner. Out of 42, only 30 plots were sold, hence, the account was not settled. Copies of three undated suicide notes have also been filed on record. In all the three suicide notes the main allegation has been mentioned against the petitioner that he played dishonesty in the transaction, hence, the deceased is committing suicide. On perusal of the facts mentioned hereinabove, it appears that the deceased committed suicide on account of ill-treatment of the petitioner upon a transaction of loan. The provision of section 306 of Indian Penal Code provides that - 306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission 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 Indian Penal Code which deals with the definition of the abetment goes as under - 107. Abetment of 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 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. Explanation - A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of 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, Indian Penal Code, 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 Indian Penal Code as quoted hereinabove. The act as alleged against the petitioner does not amount to instigation given by him to the deceased for committing suicide, nor it can said that the petitioner had intentionally aided in any manner in commission of the suicide by the deceased. If on account of playing dishonesty in a transaction or demanding any loan, any person commits suicide, it does not come within the purview of instigation for commission of suicide. Similar view has been taken by another Bench of this Court in the case of Paramjeetsingh (supra). As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta (supra), in such circumstances, there appears no instigation by the petitioner to the deceased for committing suicide. As observed by another Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Patodiya (supra). As per the allegation, it cannot be said, that it was the knowledge or intention of the petitioner that by the alleged Act, the deceased will commit suicide which is essential for the purpose of the offence. 6. Consequently, the impugned order framing charge against the petitioner for the aforementioned offence punishable under section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code appears erroneous. Hence, the same is set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the aforementioned offence. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. Petition allowed