Judgment Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order in Sessions Case No. 66/2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court). Sabarkantha at Himatnagar dated 18th December 2002 recording acquittal for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 & 114 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case, briefly summarised, are that the daughter of the complainant father was married to A-1. She had two issues out of the wedlock. However, it is stated that whenever she was going to the parental house, she was complaining and crying that the decisions in the house are taken by the mother-in-law, A-3, and A-1 only listens to the mother. The deceased daughter had visited the house of the complainant on 4.11.2000 just the previous day as there was some quarrel with regard to preparation of ‘mamra’ (parched rice). Thereafter she returned to her matrimonial house and on 5.11.2000 the complainant was informed about the suicide committed by the deceased. Therefore, they had gone to the house of the deceased daughter and thereafter lodged the complaint which was initially registered as an accidental death case No. 30/2000. 3. On the basis of the complaint, the investigation was made and the charge-sheet was filed. The Court below proceeded with the trial after it was committed to it by the Court of magistrate. After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, Further Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. The Court below, on appreciation of the material and evidence, recorded the acquittal which is assailed in the present appeal. 4. As A-2 and A-3 have expired, the present appeal stands abated qua A-2 and A-3 and would survive only qua A-1 husband. 5. Learned APP Shri HK Patel referred to the impugned judgment and submitted about the reasons recorded for the findings and conclusion. He also referred to the testimony of the complainant father, PW 3, at Exh. 23 and also the testimony of the aunty (father’s sister), PW 4 at Exh. 25. The learned APP referred to these evidences to submit that there was some quarrel on just the previous day over a trivial issue. He further submitted that there were constant quarrels as Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in-laws were having strong hold in the house and were taking the decisions. 25. The learned APP referred to these evidences to submit that there was some quarrel on just the previous day over a trivial issue. He further submitted that there were constant quarrels as Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in-laws were having strong hold in the house and were taking the decisions. He therefore submitted that as there was so much of control or restrictions, the deceased used to complain to the parents whenever she visited their house including even just the previous day. He submitted that constant harassment would attract Section 498A as amounting to cruelty which has led her to commit suicide. Learned APP Shri Patel submitted that the appreciation of evidence by the Court below is lopsided. He also referred to the complaint, Exh. 24, and submitted that the complainant father has stated about harassment and cruelty including that she was beaten by A-1. He stated that, as stated in the complaint, as the mother was having cancer, the deceased was not disclosing to them to see that they are not unhappy and used to bear and tolerate the harassment. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Shri Sankhesara referred to the testimony of the complainant father, PW 3, Exh. 23 and also referred to the complaint at Exh. 24. He also referred to the testimony of PW 4 at Exh. 25. He submitted that from the testimony of the witnesses it is evident that the complaint is about the fact that the in-laws were having total hold in the affairs of the household. He submitted that in any case as both have expired, the appeal stands abated qua them. He submitted that in any case the complaint is only with regard to some behaviour and nothing beyond. He submitted that there is no averment or allegation about any demand or harassment caused as a result thereof. He submitted that quarrel is referred to by the complainant father. It is also clear that the deceased was regularly visiting the parental house and she was ventilating the grievance. He submitted that if there was any serious issue, she would not have returned to the matrimonial house and there would have been some social interventions. He submitted that, in fact, as it transpires from the testimony of the complainant father, it is clearly admitted that she used to regularly visit the parental house. He submitted that if there was any serious issue, she would not have returned to the matrimonial house and there would have been some social interventions. He submitted that, in fact, as it transpires from the testimony of the complainant father, it is clearly admitted that she used to regularly visit the parental house. It is also stated that she was attending a computer shop of the complainant. He further submitted that it is an admitted fact that A-1 was having a medical store and used to leave for the medical store in the morning at 8 and would return at 8 in the evening. It is also an admitted fact that both the in-laws were serving and therefore there will not be anyone in the house during the day-time. 7. Learned advocate Shri Sankhesara therefore submitted that when the accused persons were not at the house most of the time during the day, the say of the complainant about harassment cannot be appreciated in this background. He submitted that at the most there could be quarrel over some trivial matters or domestic quarrels, but it cannot be said that it was of such a nature amounting to cruelty as provided in Section 498A. He therefore submitted that the ingredients for the offences under Section 498-A or Section 306 are not established. He submitted that in fact the basic ingredients regarding intentional instigation for the offence under Section 306 are not at all suggested from the evidences. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1996 (1) GLH 1018 (Para 6) and also the judgment reported in 1996 (2) GLH 5 and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maniram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1994 SC 840 , and the judgment of this High Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Vishanben w/o Chhatarambhai Sindhi (Luvana), reported in 2007 (0) GLHEL_HC 220907. 8. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the impugned judgment and order could be sustained and whether it calls for any interference in the present acquittal appeal. 9. Though the submissions have been made referring to the aspect of harassment and cruelty, it is evident that, even accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the father, PW 3 (Exh. 9. Though the submissions have been made referring to the aspect of harassment and cruelty, it is evident that, even accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the father, PW 3 (Exh. 23) and PW 4 at Exh. 25 at the face value, it only refers to the aspect of some quarrel over trivial matters. Admittedly, there is no issue regarding any demand or harassment because of any such demand. Further, it is not in dispute that the accused persons used to remain out for their work during the day time. Therefore, it would hardly leave any time for causing harassment as suggested. The say or the tenor of the complaint that the in-laws were dominating or were having too much hold in the household is not to be readily accepted. The complainant father, PW 3, in his testimony at Exh. 23 has stated and admitted that the deceased daughter was attending his computer shop, meaning thereby, she was also allowed to go out for work. At the same time, it is also admitted that she was regularly visiting the parental house which would give her space for ventilating any grievance. Therefore, the perception of harassment or every perception of harassment would not be cruelty as defined under Section 498A. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements has referred to this aspect of cruelty referring to the legislative intention for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and the presumption under Section 113-A. Further, a useful reference can be made to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhagttisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 , wherein referring to the aspect of instigation, the observation has been made that it must be established that the accused had by an act or omission or conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. Therefore, the basic requirement for instigation or intentional instigation is required to be established for the offence under Section 306. Similarly, even keeping in mind the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with regard to Section 498A and 113A of the Evidence Act every quarrel need not necessarily lead to suicide. Therefore, the basic requirement for instigation or intentional instigation is required to be established for the offence under Section 306. Similarly, even keeping in mind the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with regard to Section 498A and 113A of the Evidence Act every quarrel need not necessarily lead to suicide. The harassment or illtreatment should be of such a nature that drives a woman to commit suicide as she is left with no other option or her life has been made miserable. In other words, it depends upon the facts and circumstances and material and evidence in each case. In the facts of the case, as discussed above, it referred to quarrel over trivial matters and not even specific issues with regard to quarrel. Further, the in-laws of A-1 husband used to remain out for their work during the day time coupled with the fact that the diseased herself was allowed to attend the shop of the father. Therefore, the complaint with regard to harassment is required to be appreciated in background of these facts and circumstances. 11. As this Court is in broad agreement with the reasons recorded for the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Court below, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is well-accepted by catena of judicial pronouncements with regard to the scope of acquittal appeals under Section 378 and the approach by the appellate Court including the observations made in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & ors. vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 . 12. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid discussion regarding the appreciation of the material and evidence and the guidelines, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.