JUDGMENT Mr. Mahesh Grover, J.: - By this order I shall dispose of two Criminal Misc. Petitions bearing Nos.M-19094 and 20028 of 2010. 2. Ram Sarup (petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-19094 of 2010), Surinder and Balbir Singh (petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.M-20028 of 2010 and respondents No.2 and 3, respectively, in Crl.Misc.No.M- 19094 of 2010), who face accusations for having abetted the suicide of Shamsher Singh, pray that Criminal Complaint bearing No.17/3 dated 16.3.2010 and the consequent summoning order dated 4.6.2010, by which they have been subjected to the criminal process, be quashed. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the aforesaid petitioners had loaned some money (Rs.17 lacs) to Shamsher Singh, who failed to repay the same. Persistent demands were made by them and upon violation to repay the amount, the petitioners even approached the police. Unabled to withstand this humiliation, the deceased Shamsher Singh, who was running a shop of the commission agent under the name and style of M/s Mansa Ram and Sons at Karnal, took the extreme step of taking his own life. 4. The petitioners say that by no stretch of imagination can this be called abetting an offence of suicide and further state with reference to the peculiar facts of the case that during the life time of Shamsher Singh, they had initiated three complaints against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the deceased had issued cheques as a measure of discharge of his liability, which cheques were dishonoured. The first complaint was filed on 6.7.2007 for a cheque pertaining to an amount of Rs.7 lacs and the second on 21.7.2006 regarding an amount of Rs.3 lacs, while the third one was filed on 27.1.2007 pertaining to an amount of Rs.7 lacs. After the petitioners had led their evidence and when the statement of the deceased was to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he committed suicide. The petitioners then withdrew the complaints and filed a suit for recovery against the present complainant, who is son of the deceased, in order to recover the amounts from the estate of the deceased. This suit was filed on 21.11.2009 and along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 38 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code were filed seeking attachment of the assets of the complainant. This suit was filed on 21.11.2009 and along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 38 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code were filed seeking attachment of the assets of the complainant. It is thereafter that the instant complaint was filed after a lapse of almost a year. Prior to this, an FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Ravi on similar allegations. The said FIR bearing No.317 dated 21.5.2009 under Sections 306/34 IPC was investigated by the police, but the allegations were found to be false and the FIR was thus cancelled. It is with reference to the aforesaid facts as also the suicide note that the petitioners pray that the proceedings against them are frivolous and the allegations in the complaint do not set out the commission of any offence and thus pray that the same be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 (in Crl.Misc.No.M- 20028 of 2010), on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer and has justified the complaint as also the summoning order and has stated that the complaint at the threshold should not be quashed once it discloses commission of an offence. He has also referred to the unfortunate situation where the petitioners were hounding the deceased for recovery of the amount and using strong arm tactics creating unbearable pressure upon the deceased and also thrusting humiliation upon him. 6. To make a foray into the mind of the deceased, it is relevant to refer to the suicide note which is on record as Annexure P- 5 (in Criminal Misc.No.M-19094 of 2010), the relevant extract of which is reproduced as under :- “....So, I remained under mental pressure at the time of marriage of my daughter. In this way, they have humiliated and tortured me mentally. Because of that I am mentally disturbed and is under treatment of Doctor Samir Aggarwal. Because of that I got a relief of this. But I am not keeping good health. Now I am a diabetic patient and because of non returning the amount by the farmers, my total business has ruined and I have lost financial status of my family. Today I do not have even money to look after my family. I have been harassed by them in the society and in the market. Now I am a diabetic patient and because of non returning the amount by the farmers, my total business has ruined and I have lost financial status of my family. Today I do not have even money to look after my family. I have been harassed by them in the society and in the market. Because of that position, Surinder Kumar son of Dhan Singh, resident of Market Committee road, Karnal a proprietor of Chaudhary trading company, Anaj Mandi GT Road, Karnal a commission agent shop is our neighbourer in Pali Anaj Mandi. I have borrowed Rs.3.00 lacs on interest and was paying interest in time. Once or twice payment was also given and taken for which I had been giving on the paid of my firm to Surinder Kumar in writing. Now from sometimes I am unable to return Rs.3.00 lacs. On this account I made a lot of request to Surinder Kumar son of Dhan Singh and maternal uncle of Surinder Kumar namely Balbir Singh came to me and got 5 cheques of Rs.1.50 lacs each. These cheques were sent for payment in the banks and the same had also been bounced. I am unable to make the aforesaid payment. They have initiated legal action against me. They were justified for the same. The same is pending in the court. From reliable sources, Surinder Kumar son of Dhan Singh has also own passport and I have apprehensions that they can implicate me in false criminal cases by cheating for sending the persons in foreign countries for not allowing me to live peacefully. I cannot fight with the aforesaid persons in any way. I do not have any amount even for the treatment of my disease and for the maintenance of my family. Many people are visiting my house. They are threatening me and are humiliating me for which I own money and which has not been paid. Because of that I and my family had to bear mental tension/humiliation and as such my family is totally in shock. Because of the aforesaid difficulties, I have lost my courage and because of that, I am taking this step. They are threatening me and are humiliating me for which I own money and which has not been paid. Because of that I and my family had to bear mental tension/humiliation and as such my family is totally in shock. Because of the aforesaid difficulties, I have lost my courage and because of that, I am taking this step. I have thought that it is a good step to take and after that my family be protected and strict legal action against Ramesh son of Ram Sarup, Surinder Kumar son of Dhan Singh and his maternal uncle Balbir and some other farmers who owns my amount and have not paid the same. All these persons are responsible for my death and because of these persons I have reached to this condition :- 1. Gokal Singh son of Sheoran Singh Bazida. 2. Ram Pal Harijan son of Hari Ram. 3. Ram Singh son of Bharat Singh Bazida. 4. Bhim Singh son of Kura Ram Harijan Bazida. 5. Sunder Singh son of Phul Singh Bazida. 6. Karam Singh son of Risal Singh Bazida. 7. Kashmiri Lal son of Rishal Singh Harijan Bazida. 8. Krishan Lal son of Bhukh Ram Majura. 9. Dharam Singh son of Phul Singh Bazida. 10. Roshan son of Neki Ram Katladi. 11. Jaipal son of Tula Ram Dathera UP. 12. Rajinder Singh son of Rattan Singh Subhri. 13. Ramesh Kumar + Hari Singh Julaha sons of Shyam Singh Bajida. 14. Shishpal son of Randhir Singh Narukheri. 15. Surjit Singh son of Narukheri. 16. Rajinder Singh son of Chatru Dathera. Jaipal Hathera. 17. Jaipal son of Phul Singh Bazida. 18. Sunder Singh son of Phul Singh Bazida. 19. Rajpal son of Sultan Singh Aklampura. Against all these farmers, there is outstanding amount which is running in lacs which has been shown in the accounts books. Out of them, at serial no.6 is Karam Singh son of Risal Singh, there is account in the name of Risal Singh. This account of jointly settled by Karam Singh. Similarly, at Serial no.18, Sunder Singh had been dealing in the name of his son Rajesh. Infact his son have never come for dealing. Sunder Singh had been coming. As such, Govt. is requested to my money may please be got recovered from these farmers so that my family may settle the accounts. It shall be thankful to you.” 7. Similarly, at Serial no.18, Sunder Singh had been dealing in the name of his son Rajesh. Infact his son have never come for dealing. Sunder Singh had been coming. As such, Govt. is requested to my money may please be got recovered from these farmers so that my family may settle the accounts. It shall be thankful to you.” 7. A perusal of this note reveals that the deceased was under debt not only under the petitioners but numerous other persons whom he himself named in the note. Most of them were farmers who were having transactions with him and besides the amount that he had taken from the petitioners he had also taken loans regarding which he was struggling even to pay the interest what to talk of the principal. The suicide note is elaborate and its authenticity is not disputed inter se between the parties. 8. There being no dispute about the document and its contents, the Court is constrained to observe that the deceased was surrounded by a situation which unfortunately was of his own making. Sections 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code are relevant provisions to be noticed in order to determine the controversy and the same are extracted as under :- “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.” “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 an act or illegal omission, the going of that thing. Explanation 1. - A person who, why 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. Explanation 2. Explanation 1. - A person who, why 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. 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.” 9. The Supreme Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. 2002, Cri.L.J. 2796 has in emphatic words described what is instigation. In that case the accused had asked the deceased ‘to go and die’ and in that backdrop the Supreme Court observed as follows :- ..“Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and die’, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’. The word ‘instigate’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of means rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with means rea....” 10. To constitute abetment of suicide the words, actions and conduct that is attributed to a person has to be overt and not merely inferential resulting from a contribution to a situation by a normal standardized conduct of human behaviour. It would then depend upon sensitivity of a person and his perceptible reaction to the situation if he convinces himself about the futility of his existence. 11. In the instant case the petitioners were having loan transactions with the deceased and it was normal for them to insist that their money be returned. No act has been attributed to them which can be termed to be taking recourse to illegal activity for recovery of such an amount. Rather, they had used the agency of the police to register FIR against the deceased and had also filed complaints against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Their conduct, therefore, was that of a prudent law abiding citizen making an endeavour to recover a bad loan. 12. Rather, they had used the agency of the police to register FIR against the deceased and had also filed complaints against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Their conduct, therefore, was that of a prudent law abiding citizen making an endeavour to recover a bad loan. 12. The deceased, on the other hand, was surrounded by numerous such transactions which had gone bad and it is, therefore, the cumulative effect of all such bad transactions which pushed him to a corner. Such situation could possibly be have been a result of his own mismanagement, but that is not for the Court to comment upon. Suffice it to say that the complaint even if taken on its face value does not sufficiently establish the commission of an offence under Section 306 IPC and since it has been filed in the backdrop of a tussle where the petitioners seek to recover their loan from the estate of the deceased, the lodging of the complaint in order to ward off such action cannot be ruled out implying thereby that the complaint is motivated. 13. In Ram Naresh and another v. State of M.P. and others 2002(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 52, S.P.S. Rathore, Director General of Police, Haryana v. C.B.I. New Delhi 2002(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 174, Hira Lal Jain v. State 2001(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 251, Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana 1999(1) P.L.R. 287 and Gulab Kaur v. State of Haryana 1991(3)R.C.R.) Criminal) 159 it has been held that to bring a charge of abetment of suicide it has to be shown by some piece of evidence that the accused person is guilty of commission or omission which way abet the deceased person to commit suicide. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, on the other hand, placed reliance upon a judgment in Didigam Bikshapathi & Anr. v. State of A.P., 2008(1)R.C.R. (Criminal) 209 where the Supreme Court while referring to the facts of the case in which there was a business dispute between the accused and the deceased and the accused having hurled abuses in filthy language upon refusal by the accused to return the amount led to the committing of suicide by the deceased leaving behind a suicide note and the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a case for abetment of suicide was indeed made out. The distinctive feature in this case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant is the suicide note itself which is noticed by the Supreme Court wherein a clear mention has been made about the role of the accused. In Netai Dutta v. State of W.B., 2005 Crl.L.J. 1737 it was observed by the Supreme Court as under :- “6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Panab Kumar Nag.” 15. To the mind of this Court, the suicide note in question also does not suggest any wilful act or omission or an act of intentional aiding or instigating the deceased and since the basic ingredients of constituting an offence are not made out and the background of the case strongly suggest an attempt to evade the liability to satisfy a loan, I am of the opinion that the pressure tactic adopted by the respondents is an abuse of the process of law. 16. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604, following principles were laid down for considering the quashing of a complaint :- “1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 17. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised to quash the complaint and all consequent proceedings. 18. In the result the petitions are allowed and the complaint in question with all consequential proceedings is quashed. ------------