JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that case F.I.R. No. 85/2012 registered at P.S. Ratan Nagar, District Churu for offence under Section 306 I.P.C., be quashed. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order dated 16.4.2013, whereby office was directed to correct the number of F.I.R. from 88/2012 to 85/2012. 2. Briefly stated, complainant-respondent No. 2, Smt. Rami in the written complaint submitted under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had alleged that the petitioner had submitted a complaint against her husband that he had raised construction of the house by wrongly obtaining financial assistance and aid from the Government under Indira Aawas Scheme. 3. Primary grievance of the complainant in the impugned F.I.R. is that the deceased felt harassed due to false complaint made by the petitioner, and therefore, had committed suicide. It is not denied that in pursuance of the complaint filed by the petitioner, a notice was issued by the lawful authorities to the deceased and deceased had filed reply thereto. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had demanded amount from deceased for withdrawing the complaint. 4. From the allegation emerging from the prosecution, it is apparent that the deceased had committed suicide because petitioner had made a complaint against him to the authorities that he had built the house by accepting grant from the Government on Indira Aawas Yojna, to which he was not entitled. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner, later had demanded some amount from the deceased for withdrawing the complaint, the question for consideration for this Court is whether making of a complaint against anybody demanding amount for its withdrawal will amount to abetment to suicide or not? 5. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 of Indian Penal Code and the same read as under: 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 m 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 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 6. Apex Court from time to time has defined abetment to suicide. In Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 701 , their Lordships considered the legal position and noticed as under: "13. The legal position as regards Sections 306 I.P.C. which is long settled was recently reiterated by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 , as follows in paras 12 and 13- "12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal , this Court has observed that the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires lo the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 14. Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 , this Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107 I.P.C. when it observed as follows in para 6- "6. Section 107 I.P.C. defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in I.P.C. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence." 15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 I.P.C., the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life, it is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 I.P.C. is not sustainable." A similar view was also taken in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 and held as under: "19. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt, of NCT of Delhi), 2009(11) SCALE 24 , had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 20. 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. 21. The intention of the 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 tea 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." 7. On the touch stone of the standards laid by Hon'ble Apex Court, it can be safely said that accused had neither instigated nor urged nor provoked nor goaded the deceased to commit suicide. The deceased was a hypersensitive person. He had a remedy to take accused to task and suicide was not the only answer. Accepting prosecution allegations as they are and applying the ratio of law laid in Amalendu Pal's case (supra) this Court has no hesitation to hold that no offence is made out. 8. Consequently, the present petition is accepted and the impugned F.I.R. along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.Petition allowed. *******