ORDER : C.V. Sirpukar, J. This criminal revision filed under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant/accused Mamta Rai, is directed against the order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur, in S.T. No.94/2015, whereby learned trial Court had framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the applicant/accused. 2. The case of the prosecution before the learned trial Court may briefly be summarized as hereunder: Applicant Mamta Rai is a widow in her early thirties, with two children. Her husband Kailash Chandra was a liquor contractor and died about 5 years ago in an accident. She lived with her children in quarter No.220 of Sun City Colony, Chhattarpur. Deceased Ravindra Yadav was also married and had a daughter. He had illicit relations with applicant Mamta Rai and was living with her for past two years. He lived-in with applicant Mamta Rai in quarter no. 220 of Sun City Colony, Chhattarpur. Applicant Mamta Rai had financed the deceased for opening a medical store in the name and style of Yadav Medical Store at Chhattarpur. Lately, she had started to pressurize the deceased to return the money, she had invested in the medical store. As a result, deceased felt trapped and was under severe mental tension. 3. At around 11.00 pm on 15.04.2014, applicant Mamta Rai was asleep in her home along with her children. Deceased Ravindra Yadav entered his room in her house. She heard something falling. She got up and found that the room of deceased Ravindra Yadav was bolted from inside. She peered from a slit and saw that deceased Ravindra Yadav was hanging by neck from the ceiling fan by a scarf (Dupatta). She cried and called Santosh and his wife. They pushed the door open and saw deceased Ravindra hanging from the fan; whereon, they ran away from the spot. Thereafter, she called Ajay Pal, who was a tutor of her children, to the spot. Thereafter, she cut the scarf (Dupatta) by which deceased was hanging from the ceiling fan with a sickle and brought the deceased Ravindra down. Ajay Pal asked her to take the deceased Ravindra to the hospital. Thereafter, she lodged marg intimation at around 11.30 pm the same night, in the police station. 4. Thereafter, she cut the scarf (Dupatta) by which deceased was hanging from the ceiling fan with a sickle and brought the deceased Ravindra down. Ajay Pal asked her to take the deceased Ravindra to the hospital. Thereafter, she lodged marg intimation at around 11.30 pm the same night, in the police station. 4. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the applicant Mamta Rai under Section 306 of the I.P.C. After hearing the applicant, learned Session Judge framed charge against her as aforesaid. 5. Inviting attention of the Court to various authorities, it has been argued on behalf of the applicant that even if all allegation made against the applicant are taken at their face value, her act and conduct would not fall under the ambit of abetment of suicide. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent State on the other hand, has support the impugned order mainly on the ground that the applicant was pressurising the deceased to return her money; therefore, the deceased was under severe mental stress. The applicant also had illicit live-in kind of relationship with the deceased, which added to his stress. It has further been submitted that the deceased had absconded for about a year after the incident. 7. The Court shall first consider whether there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the applicant Mamta? 8. A perusal of the case diary reveals that deceased left no suicide note. As such, the prosecution case is based almost entirely upon the marg intimation lodged by the accused/applicant, statements of witnesses, Naksha Panchnama Lash and postmortem report. The post mortem reveals that the deceased had ligature marks over the neck above thyroid cartilage. The doctor conducting the postmortem examination, opined that the ligature mark was ante-mortem in nature and the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by hanging. Thus, it is not disputed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging from the ceiling fan by a scarf (Dupatta). 9. The doctor conducting the postmortem examination, opined that the ligature mark was ante-mortem in nature and the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by hanging. Thus, it is not disputed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging from the ceiling fan by a scarf (Dupatta). 9. During investigation, police recorded the statements of Pratibha Soni and Paritosh Soni, who were neighbours and who were informed by applicant Mamta Rai about the incident on telephone, Pratap Singh Yadav, father of the deceased, Anjali Yadav, wife of the deceased, Ajay Pal, tutor of children of the applicant, who was first to reach the spot after being called by the applicant Mamta Rai and Om Yadav and Sandhya Yadav, who were salesman in the medical shop run by the deceased. The prosecution story as may to culled out from aforesaid statements is that the applicant was a 32 years widow, having two children. Her husband Kailash Chandra Rai was a liquor contractor, who died in a motor accident about 5 years ago. About two years ago, the applicant had developed intimacy with deceased and was in a live in relationship with him. The deceased was also married and had a daughter. His relations with his wife were strained due to his illicit relations with the applicant. 10. Applicant had financed the medical shop open by deceased in the name and style of Yadav Medical Store. The applicant was pressurising the deceased to return her money, which caused severe mental stress to the deceased and he felt trapped and helpless. Consequently, he committed suicide in the house of the applicant Mamta by hanging himself by a scarf from the ceiling fan. 11. Now the question that arises for consideration is that whether the conduct of the applicant as brought forth in the statement of witnesses, constitutes abetment of suicide? 12. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: "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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 13. Term abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is as hereunder: "107. 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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 13. Term abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is as hereunder: "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 aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." 14. It has been held by the apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that: "To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred.(Emphasis supplied) 15. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (Supreme Court) that: "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, 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide"..... 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"..... (Emphasis supplied) 16. The Supreme Court further observed in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that: "The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option accept to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred." 17. Likewise in the case of Milind Bhagwanrao Godse v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 3 SCC 699 , it was observed that: "The circumstances enumerated in the suicide note and oral evidence show that accused created circumstances which left no option for the wife but to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life." 18. On the same point, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Aman Singh v. State of M.P., 2005 (2) JLJ 224 observed as hereunder: More so, in this case the accused has not by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which an instigation may have been inferred. 19. It is pertinent to note that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ved Prakash v. State of M.P., 1995 Cr.L.J. 893, with regard to suicide committed following attempts by the accused to recover his loan held as hereunder: "The accused persons were charge-sheeted under section 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of a suicide note left by the deceased in which he had blamed all the five accused and held them responsible for his (suicidal) death. However, it was found that none of the accused had goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to refund repay the amount of loan advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. Moreover, the deceased could have lodged a report against accused who had allegedly tortured him and threatened him to kill. They merely goaded him to refund repay the amount of loan advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. Moreover, the deceased could have lodged a report against accused who had allegedly tortured him and threatened him to kill. May be, as it sometimes happens, the police officials might have declined to record the report. In that case, he could have moved higher officials. But, instead of taking this legal and legitimate action, the deceased adopted an escapist course of committing suicide in order to take revenge from his alleged tormentors. No case for alleged commission of the was made out against the accused persons. The prosecution of the accused would be nothing but abuse of process of law. The charge-sheet filed against accused Quashed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code." 20. In the case at hand, it has been established prima facie that the applicant/accused had live-in relationship with the deceased and had financed his medical shop. She was demanding back the money invested by her in the medical shop which caused severe mental stress to the deceased, as a result of which, he committed suicide by hanging. However, it is clear that the applicant had no intention of instigating or goading deceased to commit suicide, for the simple reason that with the suicide of deceased, her chances of recovering money invested in the shop, practically vanished. She could not conceivably foreseen that a demand for money as also her relationship with the deceased would lead to suicide by deceased. 21. The deceased was a young businessman. His relationship with his wife was strained. He had a daughter from his wife. On the other hand, applicant Mamta is a widow with two young children to raise. She had invested money in the medical shop run by the deceased. The nature of the financial relationship between the two is not clear from the statements of the witnesses. The police has not collected any document which would through light upon the nature of financial arrangement between the deceased and the applicant. In these circumstances, the applicant was perfectly justified in demanding her money back, from the deceased. In the situation the deceased found himself in, he had several options before him. The police has not collected any document which would through light upon the nature of financial arrangement between the deceased and the applicant. In these circumstances, the applicant was perfectly justified in demanding her money back, from the deceased. In the situation the deceased found himself in, he had several options before him. One of them was to have faced any legal action that could potentially have been instituted by the applicant; however, he was ultra sensitive to the situation and chose to end his life. In aforesaid circumstances, commission of suicide by the deceased was sheer exercise in escapism on the part of the deceased, for which the applicant cannot be held to be legally liable because by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the applicant has succeeded in creating such a situation for the deceased that he was left with no option but to commit suicide. The applicant had not reason to conceive the nexus between her demand for money from the deceased, which she had advanced and even her illicit relationship with the deceased; and the result thereof, which eventually ensued. 22. The fact that the applicant absconded for a period of about one year subsequent to the incident has no relevance, as she was the one, who lodged marg intimation within a hour and half of the incident. 23. Thus, there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the applicant Mamta Rai under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and the charge framed against her is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. As such, she is entitled to be discharged in respect of aforesaid offence. 24. In the result, this criminal revision succeeds. Applicant Mamta Rai is discharged in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. She shall be set at liberty forthwith if she continues to be in custody and is not required in connection with any other case. Certified copy as per rules. Petition allowed.