ORDER : Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. This petition under section 397 read with section 401, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed to set aside order dated 11-7-2016, whereby the learned ASJ, Sagar has framed charges under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 9-11-2015, Manish Agrawal lodged a report stating that Manish Soni has committed suicide by hanging himself in his own house. He was declared dead at the hospital. After investigation police has filed charge-sheet against the applicants for offence under section 306, Indian Penal Code on the ground that the applicants have pressurized the deceased for refund of the advanced money, to such an extent that he had no option except to commit suicide. 3. The petitioners contended that they have not instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The petitioners are responsible only for asking the deceased to refund the money they have advanced to him and, therefore, the offence under section 306 is not made out. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that because of the applicants’ pressurizing the deceased and saying that by any means the deceased should refund their money before the evening failing which, they will defame the deceased in the market. The deceased was instigated to take this drastic step, therefore framing of charge against the petitioner is justifiable. 5. For making out the charges under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code it is essential and requisite ingredient of ‘abetment’ by the accused persons to the deceased to commit suicide is fulfilled, section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as 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.” Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code provides abetment is constituted by : 1. Instigating a person to commit an offence: or 2. Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it: or 3. Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. 6. This Court in the earlier judgments has analyzed this provisions minutely and has given the findings. Instigating a person to commit an offence: or 2. Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it: or 3. Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. 6. This Court in the earlier judgments has analyzed this provisions minutely and has given the findings. In Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma vs. State of M.P., M. P. Weekly Notes 34. It is held that “borrower saying to creditor that he may commit ‘suicide’ — it does not amount to instigation — any conversation between borrower and creditor — does not amount to abetment to commit suicide.” 7. In Vedprakash vs. State of M. P., reported in 1994 JLJ 758 this Court has held that “demand of loan advanced — is not abetment to commit suicide.” Similarly in Karan Jatiya vs. State of M.P., reported as 2015 M.P. Weekly Notes 66, this Court has reiterated and held that “commit suicide — applicant merely demanded money which deceased allegedly taken on loan does not constitute offence under section 306, Indian Penal Code.” Similarly in Munnalal Jain vs. State of M.P., reported as 2009(III) MPWN 79 , this Court has held that “no instigation to commit suicide found in suicidal note — demand of loan amount cannot be prohibited- no charge can be framed on such demand.” In another matter of Pramod Kumar and another vs. State of M.P., 2007 (II) MPWN 26 , in a similar matter this Court has decided similar question and held that “Charge cannot be framed when no ingredient of section 107, Indian Penal Code are alleged — demand of money or assaulting deceased- do not come under the provision.” 8. It may be possible that the demand of loan advanced was made by the petitioners and they have also threatened him to refund the same till the evening failing which they may defame the deceased. But, it cannot be equated to they instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It may be possible that the deceased appeared to be of ultra-sensitive to threats and humiliation caused to him as is evident by his conduct. He had the option to refund the money or report to the police or at best could have sought time to repay the amount in instalments. He did not take any such action but committed suicide by hanging at his house. It shows that he was ultra sensitive. 9. He had the option to refund the money or report to the police or at best could have sought time to repay the amount in instalments. He did not take any such action but committed suicide by hanging at his house. It shows that he was ultra sensitive. 9. To satisfy the requirements of the instigation, though it is not necessary that actual words be used to that effect or what constitutes investigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequences. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being spell out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omissions or by continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. Therefore, the necessary ingredient of instigation seems to be missing in the present case. 10. Keeping in view the above case laws and circumstances prevailed in this case, this criminal revision succeeds and the petitioners Pappu @ Shankarlal Soni, Jaggu @ Jageshwar Soni and Sanjay Soni are discharged in respect of offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. However the trial Court is directed to consider the matter with regard to charge afresh and after giving the accused persons opportunity of being heard, frame charges, other than the one under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, if any, and proceed with the matter accordingly.