JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case as well as the impugned order. 2. The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against whom charge has been framed for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Hanumangarh, H.Q. Nohar by order dated 29.5.2008. 3. Assailing the order framing charge against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the highest allegation of prosecution is accepted in its entirety, then there is no material on the record by which it can be inferred that the petitioner has abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. It is submitted that the highest case of the prosecution is that the petitioners had made.false allegations of theft against the family of the deceased. Merely by this, it cannot be inferred that the petitioners abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Smt. Vidhya. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision and submits that since the petitioners levelled a false allegation of theft against the family of the deceased, she felt disgusted and was left with no option but to commit suicide. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar. 6. From a perusal of the record of the case, it is revealed that the investigation, which has been done, reveals that there was a dispute between both. the families in relation to certain allegations and counter allegations of theft of property. Even if the prosecution case is accepted at its highest, all that is alleged against the petitioners is that they made allegation of theft against the family members of the deceased. Merely by making of allegations of theft, even if they are false, it cannot be said that the accused instigated or abetted commission of suicide by the deceased. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 327 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306, I.P.C. there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." 8. Apparently, in this case, apart from the allegations against the accused that they made an imputation of theft against the family of the deceased, there is no direct allegation against the petitioners that they acted with the deceased in any manner which can be said to be instigation or abetment to her for committing suicide by which it can be inferred that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The charge framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is hereby quashed. 10. The stay application also stands disposed of.Revision petition allowed. *******