ORDER : The petitioners have filed this revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code assailing the order dated 18-12-2015 passed by the Second ASJ Chhindwara in S.T. No. 67/2015 whereby the learned trial Court has framed charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of this petition are, deceased Rubina Bano consumed poisonous substance for committing suicide on 19-11-2014. During her treatment at Nagpur she died. The mother of the deceased lodged the FIR on 20-11-2014 at Police Station Chandameta District Chhindwara, which has been registered under section 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and two other co-accused namely Hakku alias Hakim Uddin and Simma alias Saleem Uddin. A “suicide note” was recovered. After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under section 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. After committal of the case, the same was transferred to the Court of Second ASJ Chhindwara. Learned trial Court framed the charge under section 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the present petitioners. 4. The petitioners have assailed the order impugned on the ground that on the basis of political influence and partisan, the petitioners have been implicated. It is stated that, the petitioners have never involved in “outraging the modesty” of the deceased. Neither they insulted nor misbehaved with the deceased. The petitioners have no role in the commission of suicide by deceased Rubina Bano, therefore, they requested to set aside the order impugned and to discharge the petitioners from charge for offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and inter alia contended that the order impugned speaks for itself that the petitioners and other accused persons were responsible for instigation by repeatedly outraging the modesty of deceased to commit suicide. It is further stated that the impugned order is based on the statements of the witnesses so also the “suicide note”, therefore, it calls for no interference. 6. On behalf of the complainant/respondent No. 2 the petition is vehemently opposed on the ground that, earlier the deceased lodged a report against co-accused Hakim Uddin on 5-10-2014. It is further stated that the impugned order is based on the statements of the witnesses so also the “suicide note”, therefore, it calls for no interference. 6. On behalf of the complainant/respondent No. 2 the petition is vehemently opposed on the ground that, earlier the deceased lodged a report against co-accused Hakim Uddin on 5-10-2014. The petitioners are the cousins of Hakim Uddin, threatened the deceased to kill her brother and also to defame her if she lodges report against Hakim Uddin. The consistent act of the petitioners led the deceased to commit suicide. Deceased lodged two written complaints against the petitioners for defaming her and for mental torture. Deceased also left a suicide note giving the details, therefore, the petitioners left no option to the deceased except to commit suicide. To bolster his contentions, counsel for the respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 and in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 . 7. On perusal of the record, it is found that deceased consumed poisonous substance and during treatment in the Medical College at Nagpur, she breathed her last, but in the post-mortem report dated 21-11-2014 the opinion has been reserved. 8. According to the statement of Khurshid Begum, mother of the deceased, deceased was a student of Second Year BCA course. When she used to go to College, accused Hakku alias Hakim Uddin used to tease her and was making obscene gestures. Report was lodged at Police Station Chandameta earlier to that effect. Consequent thereupon, a criminal case for outraging the modesty was registered against Hakim Uddin and he was arrested. Later he was released on bail. Accused Hakku alias Hakim Uddin and his brother accused Simma alias Saleem Uddin and his cousin brothers the present petitioners were repeatedly stalking her. On 11-11-2014 petitioner Tanvir Ulla passed certain comments on her in the loudspeaker, when the deceased was going to College. The accused persons were teasing the deceased Rubina Bano since 1½ months and were threatening her to kill her brother and father if she does not withdraw the criminal complaint against accused Hakim Uddin. On 11-11-2014 petitioner Tanvir Ulla passed certain comments on her in the loudspeaker, when the deceased was going to College. The accused persons were teasing the deceased Rubina Bano since 1½ months and were threatening her to kill her brother and father if she does not withdraw the criminal complaint against accused Hakim Uddin. Because of this harassment, deceased Rubina Bano on 19-11-2014 at about 7.30 p.m. consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide. 9. The suicide note left by the deceased reads as under :— 10. The suicide note does not reveal the names of present petitioners Tanveer Ulla and Taukir Ullah. Sameem Siddhiqui, uncle of the deceased in the police statement, has also narrated that accused persons Hakim Uddin, Saleem uddin, Tanvir Ulla used to stare (ghurte the) at the deceased and because of their harassment, she committed suicide leaving the “suicide note”. In the statement recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. Zeba Siddhiqui the sister of the deceased also, Hakim Uddin was sent to jail on the report of the deceased. After he was released Hakim Uddin, his brother Simma alias Saleem Uddin and his cousin Tanvir Ulla were staring the deceased and threatened the deceased to kill her father and brother. Tanvir Ulla also commented some obscene words in the sports ground on 19-11-2014. At 6.p.m. she returned from the College. At 7 p.m. she consumed something and started vomiting. Later, she was shifted to hospital. She claimed that deceased consumed “Sulphas” pills (pesticides). 11. In the case of Amit Kapoor (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given guidelines for framing of charge and has analyzed the provisions of sections 227 and 228 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is held that “at the stage of framing of charge satisfaction of Court in relation to the existence of constituents of offence and facts alleging to that offence is sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction. Merely strong suspicion that accused has committed offence is sufficient. Final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage of framing of charge. Statement made by son of deceased as well as getting of blank papers signed by accused and not giving money due to him etc. were stated to be circumstances leading to commission of suicide. Presumption under section 228 of Criminal Procedure Code held could hence have been invoked. Statement made by son of deceased as well as getting of blank papers signed by accused and not giving money due to him etc. were stated to be circumstances leading to commission of suicide. Presumption under section 228 of Criminal Procedure Code held could hence have been invoked. High Court erred in quashing the charge framed under section 306 of Indian Penal Code - charge restored”. The circumstances of the case at hand are completely different, therefore, citation is of no help to the respondent No. 2. 12. The respondent No. 2 has also relied on judgment in the case of Chitresh Kumar (supra), in which, it is held that prima facie the conduct of the appellant and his accomplices appeared such that deceased was left with no other option except to end his life — hence impugned upholding order of Trial court framing charge for offence under section 306 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code calls for no interference. It is further held that if there is ground of presumption that accused has committed offence and not for the purpose of arriving at a definite conclusion — ‘presumption’ means if on the basis of material on record, Court could come to the conclusion that commission of offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists.” 13. To understand the present case in its proper perspective, it would be appropriate to reproduce section 306 of Indian Penal Code, which reads thus; “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.” 14. It is also necessary to understand what actually constitutes “abetment” as has been defined under section 107 of Indian Penal Code, which read as follows :— “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 of that thing; or Thirdly — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 15. It is to be noted here that the names of the petitioners do not find place in the “suicide note”. It is the accused Hakim Uddin whose name finds place in the “suicide note”. It would be appropriate to mention here that in the present case, the petitioners acts or omissions or continued course of conduct to commit suicide, is completely missing. May be the acts or omissions of the other accused Hakku alias Hakim Uddin may constitute the same. Therefore, the petitioners Taukir Ulla and Tanvir Ulla may not be tantamount to instigation for committing suicide. The circumstances enumerated in the suicide note and in the oral evidence also does not show that the petitioners created circumstances which left with no option for the deceased to take extreme step of putting end to her life. 16. In the case of Madia alias Mahadev vs. State, 2006 Cr.L.J. 1963 (M.P.) it is held that the accused was alleged to have tried to outrage the modesty of the deceased, who had committed suicide two days after the happening of incident because she felt ashamed. Period of two days that elapsed between the two incidents showed that act of accused did not instigate her to commit suicide. It was held that accused could not be held guilty of offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 17. The deceased neither disclosed the action of the petitioners nor connected the petitioners with any act or omission, which would amount to ‘instigate’ or ‘abet’ for commission of suicide. 18. In such circumstances, it seems that the deceased committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences with the accused Hakim Uddin. In a similar circumstance, an individual in other Society is not expected to commit suicide. Therefore the ingredient without a positive act on the part of the petitioners to instigate or aid in committing suicide, is missing. 19. Consequently, this petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 18-12-2015 passed by the trial Court leveling charge for the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, so far as it relates to the present petitioners, is hereby set aside.