ORDER : Petitioners by Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate. Respondent/State by Mr. Pravin Niwaskar, GA Final arguments heard. Perused the record. Being aggrieved by the order dated 8-4-2009 passed by II ASJ, FCT, Ganjbasoda in ST No. 54/2009, whereby charge was framed against the petitioners for the offence alleged to have been committed under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, present revision petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submit that deceased is Dashrath who died on 4-5-2008 by consuming poisonous substance. It is submitted that petitioners No. 1 and 4 are the parents and petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the brother of deceased. It is submitted that the only allegation against the petitioners is that in spite of demand of share in the undivided joint Hindu property the deceased was denied of his rights, therefore, he has consumed the poisonous substance. It is submitted that even if entire prosecution story is taken into consideration, then too, no offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is made out. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the order impugned herein whereby the charge framed against the petitioners under section 306 Indian Penal Code be set aside and the petitioners be discharged. 3. Learned counsel for respondent/State submits that after perusal of the record which includes the evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation, learned Court below has framed the charge which requires no interference. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 4. From perusal of record, it is evident that Shantibai is the wife of deceased/Dashrath who has deposed in her statement recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code that petitioner No. 1 gave share to other members of the family but share was not given to the deceased/Dashrath in spite of demand while he was repeatedly asking that it is practically not possible for him to run his family. So far as offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the law laid down in the matter of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M. P., reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 943 wherein during quarrel the accused allegedly remarking to the deceased to go and die, thereafter the deceased going and committing suicide, Hon'ble Apex Court held that suicide is not direct result of the words uttered by the accused, hence Sessions Court erred in summoning the appellant to face the trial. In the matter of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M. P., reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998 wherein the quarrel was between accused and deceased and accused told the deceased to go and die, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the remark itself would not constitute ingredient of 'instigation' as presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant of instigation. 5. From perusal of the record, it is also evident that even if the entire story of prosecution is accepted as it is, then too, there is nothing on record to show that petitioners instigated the deceased/Dashrath to commit suicide. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that learned Court below committed error in framing charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. In view of this, the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the impugned order dated 8-4-2009 passed by II ASJ, FCT, Ganjbasoda in ST No. 54/2009, whereby charge was framed against the petitioner for the offence alleged to have been committed under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. Petitioners stands discharged. 6. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of C.C. as per rules.