ORDER This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 30-01-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa whereby charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. was framed against the petitioner. (2) Brief facts are that one Om Prakash Chandra, who was the president of Janbhagidari and Shala Vikas Samiti, Katod committed suicide on 25-06- 2007 at about 11 P.M. by consuming poison. Postmortem report dated 26-06-2007 confirmed cause of death to be asphyxia due to insecticidal poisoning. F.I.R. was lodged by Gita Bai Chandra, wife of the deceased on 26-06-2007 at 06.45 P.M. at P. S. Dabhra stating that at about 8 P.M., Om Prakash Chandra returned home staggering and within 10 minutes his condition deteriorated and while being shifted to the hospital at Kharsia, he died. Statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. revealed that one Mukesh Mahant, who is shown in the challan as absconding after the date of occurrence, had undertaken the construction work of primary school building in Katod. As President of the committee, Om Prakash Chandra while supervising the said construction work had made purchases worth Rs.63,000/-. Despite his request, Mukesh Mahant was not taking any steps for payment of the said amount on the ground that Om Prakash Chandra had made a complaint against him, and stated that he would abide only by the orders given by the superior officers. Frustrated, Om Prakash Chandra went to the petitioner, who was the Chief Executive Officer at Dabhra on 25-06-2007 with one Churamani and made an application requesting for payment of Rs.63,000/-. Statement of Churamani recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. divulges that the petitioner said to the deceased that" you burn your house of your own and ask me for water, why should I give? Did you ask me before undertaking the work or before making the purchases? Did you seek instructions from the government?" The petitioner thereupon got annoyed, refused to accept the application and asked Om Prakash Chandra to go away. Om Prakash Chandra and Churamani went from there to Raju Hotel for eating snacks. Thereafter, Churamani left for his office and Om Prakash Chandra left for his house. At about 11 P.M., Mehattar Ram Chandra informed Churamani that Om Prakash Chandra had become serious upon consuming poison. Om Prakash Chandra died while being shifted to the hospital. Om Prakash Chandra and Churamani went from there to Raju Hotel for eating snacks. Thereafter, Churamani left for his office and Om Prakash Chandra left for his house. At about 11 P.M., Mehattar Ram Chandra informed Churamani that Om Prakash Chandra had become serious upon consuming poison. Om Prakash Chandra died while being shifted to the hospital. (3) Smt. Fouzia Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that if the entire prosecution story is accepted at its face value, it does not disclose any ground for framing charge against the petitioner even prima facie under Section 306 of I.P.C. Reliance was placed on Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Versus State of M. P., 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1141 and Swamy Prahaladdas Versus State of M. P. and another, 1995 Supplementary (3) Supreme Court Cases 438. In those cases, despite the fact that the appellant was alleged to have remarked the deceased "to go and die", it was held that suicide was not proximate to the quarrel that had ensued with the appellant as the words uttered by the appellant were not enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Reliance was also placed on a decision rendered by this Court in Criminal Revision No.295/2006 Nandu Ram Bandhe and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh on 10-05-2006 in which due to the frustration that his parents-in-law were not sending his wife to the matrimonial home, Om Prakash, the husband had committed suicide by consuming poison. The applicants were discharged as there was no material on record to show the existence of a case even prima facie under Section 306 of I.P.C. (4) On the other hand, Shri G. D. Vaswani, learned Government Advocate argued in support of the impugned order. (5) Having considered rival submissions, I have perused the copies of documents filed by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Section 107 of the I.P.C. defines abetment as follows: 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 1.--- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. Explanation 2. ---- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. (6) It is settled law that in order to establish the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C., the prosecution is required to prove that the suicide committed by the deceased was the direct and proximate cause of the abetment or instigation offered by the applicants. It is also well settled that the test for framing charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. is that if the material produced by the prosecution is accepted at its face value, it would constitute the essential ingredients of the said offence against the applicants. In the case of Rakesh Vaishnav vs. State of M.P., 2004 (1) C.G.L.J. 324, it was held that in order to frame a charge under Section 306 I.P.C. by the prosecution, it must be shown that the instigation, if any, was so direct, co-related, immediate and proximate with the act of suicide that it could be safely inferred that the deceased committed suicide only on account of such instigation. (7) Applying the above principle to the material placed by the prosecution in the present case, I find that there is not even an iota of material to show that the petitioner in any manner abetted or instigated the commission of suicide by Om Prakash Chandra. There is also no material to draw an inference that the petitioner wanted Om Prakash Chandra to commit suicide. (8) Suicide Note left by the deceased Om Prakash Chandra at Page No.50 is dated 23-06-2007. The deceased is said to have visited the office of the petitioner on 25-06-2007 with Churamani. There is also no material to draw an inference that the petitioner wanted Om Prakash Chandra to commit suicide. (8) Suicide Note left by the deceased Om Prakash Chandra at Page No.50 is dated 23-06-2007. The deceased is said to have visited the office of the petitioner on 25-06-2007 with Churamani. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Versus State of M. P. (Supra), since the deceased was found dead two days after the appellant was said to have told the deceased "to go and die", it was held that even though the deceased was named in the suicide note, suicide was not proximate to the quarrel and therefore not the direct result of the quarrel when the appellant had used abusive language and told the deceased to go and die. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case also, suicide committed by Om Prakash Chandra, therefore, cannot be said to be direct result of the incident mentioned in the suicidal note dated 23-06-2007 left by Om Prakash Chandra. The statement of Churamani under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not show that the petitioner had threatened to eliminate Om Prakash Chandra or had asked him to go and die. Whatever the petitioner said to Om Prakash Chandra in presence of Churamani is narrated above in para 2. In my considered opinion, there is absolutely no material on record to show that the petitioner had, in any manner, instigated or abetted the commission of suicide by Om Prakash Chandra on 25-06-2007. Even if the statement of Churamani is accepted at its face value, it would only show that the petitioner had refused to take action on the application of the deceased for justifiable reasons and thereafter Om Prakash Chandra had consumed poison somewhere around 8 P.M. which in no case, could be said to be the proximate cause of the refusal by the petitioner to take action on the application of the deceased. It appears that upon sheer frustration Om Prakash Chandra adopted an escapist view of life and ended his life for no rhyme or reason by consuming poison. (9) For the reasons aforesaid, the framing of charge under Section 306 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. against the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa cannot be sustained in the eye of law. (9) For the reasons aforesaid, the framing of charge under Section 306 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. against the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned order is thus ex facie illegal and is liable to be set aside. (10) In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 30-01-2009 framing charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner is discharged.