JUDGMENT : A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. :- By the present application, the applicants have put to chal1enge Chargesheet/Final Report No.169/2010 filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washim in Regular Criminal Case No.154/2010 arising out of Crime No.399/2009 for an offence under Sections 498-A,306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In support of the application, Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, vehemently argued that the perusal of the FIR and the entire chargesheet nowhere shows that any of the offence, for which the applicants have been prosecuted, is at all made out. He further contended that the offence is alleged to have been taken place in respect of suicide on 21.09.2009 and the FIR came to be lodged for the first time on 16.01.2010 by Surendra Bagdi, brother of the deceased Vishakha. Mr. Mardikar submitted that the deceased had, at the first blush, given a statement that she suddenly felt tension while in the house and as such put a Kerosene can containing Kerosene on her person and set herself on fire by lighting the match stick and, thereafter, went under a water tap and got it extinguished. Her mother in law took her to the Reynold Memorial Hospital, Washim where she was admitted and her dying declaration also was recorded. Mr. Mardikar further submitted that in the said dying declaration, which was first in time, states that she was not burnt by anybody but she herself took Kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. He then contended that thereafter she was admitted to Orange City Hospital and there again her statement was recorded on 24.09.2009 wherein she again stated that she herself took kerosene on her person and burnt herself with matchstick and there is no quarrel in the house. She also repeated that she was not burnt by anybody nor she was complained nor she has any complaint against anybody. The learned Senior Advocate then contended that it is only after statement of Surendra Bagdi, her brother was recorded on 16.01.2010, the offence of abetment of suicide for an offence punishable under section 306 along with sections 498-A read with section 34 was registered as late as in January-2010. According to him, this itself shows that the entire FIR was lodged after thought. According to him, this itself shows that the entire FIR was lodged after thought. He further submitted that even if the FIR is seen, no offences are at all made out much less under the provisions of Sections 498A, 306 of the IPC. Mr. Mardikar then contended that the applicants are residing at Kuwait for employment and it is impossible for them that they would commit any offence much less as alleged in the FIR. Citing various decisions, he submitted that no offence at all is made out against the applicants, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed. 3. Per contra, Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, the learned A.P.P. for State, opposed the application and submitted that the statements made by counsel for the applicants can well be examined during trial and not at this stage. The learned A.P.P., therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. We have perused the entire record. From the FIR as well as statement of Surendra, it is clear to us that none of the applicants have at all been involved in the matter bf commission of the alleged offence of abetment of suicide. It is trite law that for an offence under section 306 IPC, there must be a live link and it must be shown that reason of the suicide was directly attributable to the accused persons. In the present case, reading of the FIR as well as statement of Surendra nowhere shows that any of the applicants had at all behaved in such a manner that Vishakha would be driven to commit suicide. Even remotely neither the FIR nor the statement of Surendra indicates to the said effect. Thus, upon perusal of the FIR and chargesheet, we are of the firm opinion that offence under section 306 IPC, is not at all made out. 5. Insofar as offence under section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC is concerned, we find that prima facie, the allegations against the applicants made in the statement dated 16.01.2010 by Surendra do indicate that the element of cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498-A is there. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it would not be possible for us to hold that no offence under section 498-A read with section 34 is made out against the applicants. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it would not be possible for us to hold that no offence under section 498-A read with section 34 is made out against the applicants. The allegations made in the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation will have to be decided. The allegations cannot be ignored at this stage. That being so, we think that the applicants cannot succeed insofar as offence under section 498A read with section 34 of the IPC is concerned. 6. The upshot of the above discussion is that following order will have to be passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Application No. 1175/2010 is partly allowed. (ii) FIR No. 399/2009 dated 20.11.2009 registered with Police Station. Washim, for an offence punishable under sections 306 read with section 34 of the IPC only stands quashed and set aside. (iii) The present application, so far as quashing of the FIR for an offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the IPC is concerned, is dismissed. (iv) The applicants are at liberty either to apply for discharge or to go for trial, in accordance with law before the trial court. Application partly allowed.