JUDGMENT : Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. Vide order dated 11th April, 2014, the intervention application was allowed. Hence, leave to amend to implead the complainant as respondent No. 2. Amendment be carried out forthwith. Rule. Rule made returnable with the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal forthwith. Respondents waives service of notice through their respective Counsel. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. According to the prosecution, Tushar (deceased) had committed suicide on the railway track at Pune on 15th May, 2010. The Railway Police found a visiting card in the pocket of the deceased and a suicide note. Pursuant to the same, the Railway Police called the complainant i.e. Yashwant Dhake, the father of the deceased and informed him about the aforesaid fact. The complainant took possession of Tushar's body and performed the funeral. Thereafter, the police handed over the keys of the scooty belonging to the deceased along with Tushar's suicide note, in which it was written that the vehicle was kept at Sangeetam Office, Wakad. The complainant and his nephew Rakesh are stated to have taken search of the vehicle, but failed to find the said vehicle. After about one month, the complainant is stated to have found the scooty Vehicle at Sangeetam Office, Wakad, which was taken by him home. According to the complainant, on 19th July, 2010 i.e. after two months of the incident, when he was checking the vehicle for the scooty papers, he found one chit in the dicky of the vehicle. In the said chit, amongst other things, Tushar had written that he was committing suicide due to the harassment of the present petitioner, Sumit Dasani and others. After reading the said suicide note written by Tushar, Yashwant Dhake went to the Railway Police Station and lodged a complaint as against Raviraj Ramchandra Deshpande i.e. present petitioner, Sumit Dasani and others. Pursuant to the said FIR, C.R. No. 140/2010 came to be registered as against the present petitioner, Sumit Dasani and others with the Sanghvi Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed as against the present petitioner and Sumit Dasani and the case being sessions triable, came to be committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The petitioner preferred an application seeking his discharge from the said case. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed as against the present petitioner and Sumit Dasani and the case being sessions triable, came to be committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The petitioner preferred an application seeking his discharge from the said case. However, the Trial Court was pleased to reject the said application seeking discharge vide order dated 13th April, 2012. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that even if the prosecution case is taken as it is, no offence under Section 306 of the IPC is disclosed. He submitted that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding as against the petitioner for the alleged offence, in the absence of any material to show his complicity in the said offence. He submitted that both the suicide notes, although name the petitioner, as being one of the persons who cheated him, in one of the suicide note, the deceased has disclosed not only the name of the present petitioner but also of Pappu Sardar, Patali Yantri, Prof. Pawar, Zanzurne, Mangoli, Rajan Shah and has stated that there were 13 others who were responsible for his death. He stated that on the contrary, deceased Tushar had suffered huge losses and a perusal of the statement of the witnesses would also reveal that the deceased was in huge debt, which was in lakhs, as a result of which, he committed suicide. He submitted that there was no abetment whatsoever, as contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC, so as to make the petitioner liable for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sachin Punde, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2/original complainant contended that a perusal of the statement of the first informant, the second suicides note and the statements of Rajan Shah, Appasaheb Zanjurne and Abhay Gondhalekar would reveal that the petitioner had cheated Tushar, and as a result of which, Tushar committed suicide. He submitted that considering the suicide notes and the statement of the witnesses, the complicity of the petitioner was clearly evident and as such, there was sufficient material for proceeding as against the petitioner for the offence for which he has been charged. The learned A.P.P. supported the submissions advanced by Mr. Punde. 6. Perused the charge-sheet and the impugned order. 7. The learned A.P.P. supported the submissions advanced by Mr. Punde. 6. Perused the charge-sheet and the impugned order. 7. At the outset, it may be noted, that it is not disputed that the suicide notes were written by the deceased Tushar and that the opinion of the handwriting expert also confirms the same. In the first suicide note, written by deceased Tushar to his father, which was found on his person, the deceased has stated that it is difficult for him to commit suicide, as he would be leaving all of them and that too because of his own foolishness; and that he is finding it difficult to take his life though he was attempting to commit suicide from the previous night. The deceased has further written that he had wasted the hard earned money of his father and that everyone has been asking him to take his father's help again, and that, why couldn't other people help him; that Raviraj (present petitioner) had cheated him and that everybody agrees that Raviraj has cheated him, but why nobody questioned him and that Sumit had also ditched him; that as a result of this, there was sadness, and that now there was no turning back. At the end, he has stated that he should be forgiven. 8. The second letter written by Tushar addressed to his parents, found after two months by his father in the scooty, was handed over to the police on 19th July, 2010. The said letter was addressed to his father i.e. the complainant i.e. the father and the mother. He has written in the said letter, that he was ashamed and guilty that he had made several mistakes and that he was not able to correct the said mistakes; and also that in his business, he has suffered huge losses which could not be recovered and as a result, his parents had suffered tremendous mental stress. He has further written that he had never imagined that at such a young age, he would make such a huge mistake, however, in order to earn money and as the share market index had come down and as a result of friends' influence, he had suffered huge losses in the business and the business had to be shut down completely. He has further written that initially on less interest, money was given to him, however, later, everybody started demanding 10% interest and that for the last one month, all the lenders had started troubling his father. He has written that at times, they had even threatened to kill him and his father. He has written that although mistakes were made by him, his father was being put to mental stress and therefore the thought of putting an end to the said problem was continuously haunting him. He has expressed his apprehension that he was not sure whether he would have the strength to carry out what he had decided. He has further written that he was writing this last letter to his parents and that the thought behind ending his life was to put an end to his father's problems and the demand from all the lenders, so that his parents could in future lead a hassle free life. He has written that he had no option, but to leave home and that they should not make any inquiry with regard to the same, and in fact they should give blessings to him; and that they should not try and search for him. At the end of the said letter, he has stated that if something untoward happens to him, the persons who would be primarily responsible would be Pappu Sardar, Raviraj Deshpande (petitioner), Sumit Dasani and that the said persons were traitors. He has further stated that even Prof. Pawar, Zanzurde, Mangoli, Raj an Shah and 13 others had cheated him and were taking 10% interest from him, as a result of which, his business had to be closed and there was no money left in the business, and in the process, he had caused a loss of 20 to 25 lakhs to the family members. 9. A perusal of the statement of Yashwant Dhake i.e. the father of the deceased Tushar, dated 19th July, 2010 shows, that his son Tushar had committed suicide because of the present petitioner, Sumit Dasani and several others, as was reflected in the suicide note. 10. 9. A perusal of the statement of Yashwant Dhake i.e. the father of the deceased Tushar, dated 19th July, 2010 shows, that his son Tushar had committed suicide because of the present petitioner, Sumit Dasani and several others, as was reflected in the suicide note. 10. A perusal of Rajan Shah's statement shows that the deceased Tushar and Raviraj i.e. the petitioner, were good friends and that Rajan Shah had also invested money in share trading with the deceased and the present petitioner and that while doing share trading with Tushar and Raviraj, he has stated that there were some differences between the two. He has stated that the relations between Tushar and Raviraj (petitioner) did not improve and that both of them had initiated legal action against each other. He has stated that the cheque given by Tushar to him had been dishonoured, but as Tushar had assured to pay, he did not deposit the cheque again. 11. The evidence of the other two witnesses, Abhay Gondhalekar and Appasaheb Zanzurne is similar to the evidence of Rajan Shah. It appears that all the three witnesses had transactions with the deceased Tushar and that there was some conflict with regard to the money exchanged between them. 12. Considering the evidence as stated aforesaid, the question that would arise for consideration, is whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding as against the present petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. Section 306 is reproduced herein-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. 13. In the facts, in order to convict a person for the offence punishable under Section 306, what is required is that there should be 'abetment' as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. Section 107 of the IPC is reproduced herein-under: "107. 13. In the facts, in order to convict a person for the offence punishable under Section 306, what is required is that there should be 'abetment' as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. Section 107 of the IPC is reproduced herein-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 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 14. The manner and the reason for which Tushar committed suicide is no doubt extremely unfortunate. However, in the present case, from a perusal of the suicide notes, the statement of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses, in particular, that of the aforesaid three witnesses, it cannot be said that the petitioner had in any way abetted the commission of Tushar's suicide. For proceeding against the petitioner, it is incumbent for the prosecution to atleast, prima facie, show that the petitioner had instigated or intentionally aided or done any act contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC, as a result of which, the deceased committed suicide. There has to be some positive act. Admittedly, there is none. It appears that there were some monetary transactions between the petitioner and the deceased and that the parties had initiated legal proceedings against each other. In fact, even a perusal of the suicide notes, does not show that the petitioner either instigated or aided the commission of suicide of Tushar. The deceased had suffered a financial loss running in lakhs. It appears that there were some monetary transactions between the petitioner and the deceased and that the parties had initiated legal proceedings against each other. In fact, even a perusal of the suicide notes, does not show that the petitioner either instigated or aided the commission of suicide of Tushar. The deceased had suffered a financial loss running in lakhs. It appears from the suicide notes and the statements of witnesses, that the deceased had taken money from several persons and could not return the same and that he also had financial dealings with the petitioner. In fact, in the second suicide note, the deceased has named as many as 7 persons, including the petitioner and 13 others (unnamed), whom he held responsible for his death, however, only the petitioner and one Sumit Dasani have been charge-sheeted. The second suicide note merely at the end states that these persons were primarily responsible for his death, as they had cheated him. The said statement by itself, is not sufficient to attract the provision of Section 306 of the IPC, as there is no 'abetment' as contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC. 15. In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Ann, reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.), there was a dispute between one Saurav Mahajan, who was a final year student of Law Department and Harminder Singh, a fellow student of the same class with regard to the theft of a mobile phone. This came to the notice of M.D. Singh, the then Head of the Law Department who asked both the students to submit their versions of the incident in writing. The deceased and Harminder gave their versions and, thereafter, M.D. Singh forwarded their versions to the University authorities for taking necessary action. An inquiry was conducted on 13th October 2003 by the Security Officer of the University Shri S.S. Chheena. During the course of inquiry, on 17th October 2003, Saurav Mahajan committed suicide by jumping in front of the train. A suicide note was seized from the pocket of the deceased. On the complaint of father of the deceased, an offence under section 306 of I.P.C. was registered against Harminder Singh. During the course of trial, S.S. Cheena was also impleaded as accused. Being aggrieved by the framing of charge, S.S. Cheena approached the High Court. The High Court refused to interfere. On the complaint of father of the deceased, an offence under section 306 of I.P.C. was registered against Harminder Singh. During the course of trial, S.S. Cheena was also impleaded as accused. Being aggrieved by the framing of charge, S.S. Cheena approached the High Court. The High Court refused to interfere. Being aggrieved, S.S. Cheena approached the Supreme Court and the Apex Court was pleased to allow the petitioner and quash the proceedings as against S.S. Cheena. The Apex Court observed thus: "27. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words "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 suitability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 28. 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 the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 29. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. 30. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. 30. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant. The order of framing a charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the order of framing charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside." (Emphasis supplied) 16. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 615 (S.C.) : AIR 2010 SC 327 held that mens rea to commit the offence, must be present for proving the offence of abetment of suicide. The Supreme Court held as under: "20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigation 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 Supreme Court also held that it is not possible to lay down any formula in dealing with such cases." 17. In the present case, for proceeding with the trial, as against the petitioner, it is necessary for the prosecution to prima facie show, that the petitioner had the requisite intent to aid/instigate/abet the deceased to commit suicide. There is nothing in the entire charge-sheet to suggest the same. Without there being any positive act on the part of the petitioner in aiding/instigating/abetting the deceased to commit suicide, the petitioner cannot be compelled to face a trial. Mens rea, to commit the offence has to be reflected in the act, which led the deceased to commit suicide. The same is utterly wanting in the present case. 18. It appears from the first suicide note, that the deceased was feeling guilty of the fact that he has wasted his father's hard earned money and did not want to seek his father's help again, despite people asking him to take his help. The same is utterly wanting in the present case. 18. It appears from the first suicide note, that the deceased was feeling guilty of the fact that he has wasted his father's hard earned money and did not want to seek his father's help again, despite people asking him to take his help. It also appears that he felt that though the petitioner had cheated him and everybody supported the said fact, nobody was questioning the petitioner and hence, he was upset about the same. The second suicide note also reiterates the said fact that he was ashamed and guilty that he had made several mistakes and that he was not able to correct the said mistakes, as a result of which, he had suffered huge losses which could not be recovered. He was also upset over the fact that his parents had suffered tremendous mental stress on account of the same. He has also written that he had suffered huge losses on account of the share market index which came crashing down and that everybody was demanding a high interest from him and the lenders had also started troubling his father. He has admitted that although mistakes were made by him, his father was put under mental stress and therefore the thought of putting an end to his life was continuously haunting him. In the letter, he has written that by putting an end to his life, he would be putting an end to his father's problems and the demand from all the lenders would come to an end and that his parents would lead a hassle free life in future. He has written that his parents should bless him; and that they should not try and look for him. At the end of the said suicide note, he had written that if something untoward happens to him, the persons who would be primarily responsible would be Pappu Sardar, Raviraj Deshpande (petitioner), Sumit Dasani, Prof. Pawar, Zanzurde, Mangoli, Rajan Shah and 13 others, who had cheated him and were taking 10% interest from him, as a result of which, he had to close down his business, thereby incurring a loss of 20 to 25 lakhs to his family members. 19. Pawar, Zanzurde, Mangoli, Rajan Shah and 13 others, who had cheated him and were taking 10% interest from him, as a result of which, he had to close down his business, thereby incurring a loss of 20 to 25 lakhs to his family members. 19. In the present case, a perusal of the suicide notes, F.I.R. and statements of witnesses show that there is no reference of any specific act or incident, which would reveal that the petitioner had committed any willful act/omission or had intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. The essential ingredients necessary to constitute an offence are wanting in the present case. In the circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner, would clearly amount to abuse of the process of the law, in the absence of any material to show the complicity of the petitioner and in what manner the petitioner abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. As no offence under Section 306 is disclosed, and there being no ground for proceeding against the petitioner, the criminal proceedings against him are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following order: (1) The impugned order dated 13th April, 2012 is quashed and set-aside and consequently, the criminal proceedings being Sessions Case No. 452/2011, pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune arising out of C. R. No. 140/2010 registered at Sanghvi Police Station, Pune is quashed and set-aside. (2) Rule is made absolute on the above terms. (3) Petition disposed of accordingly.