ORDER : Sabina, J. 1. Vide this order above mentioned, two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the order whereby, charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') read with Section 120-B IPC was ordered to be framed against them. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that no offence punishable under Section 306 IPC can be said to have been committed by the petitioners. Petitioners have been falsely involved in this case. Learned counsel have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 1995 Cri. L. J. 3066, wherein it was held as under:- "Demanding a sum of money given on loan is not an offence under any provision of the criminal law. Taking out a willing and mature lady to Ram Niwas Garden or certain hotels, is also no offence. Frequent visits by the accused-petitioner to the house of Smt. Kusum Devi was also no offence because it is not said that he was visiting the house against the wishes of Smt. Kusum Devi." 3. Learned counsel have next placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. State of Rajasthan 2012(2) Crimes 628 (Raj.), wherein it was held as under:- "Mere threats of involving the family in a false and frivolous cases cannot be held to tantamount to instigation. Instigation has been interpreted to mean to provoke, to incite, to urge a person to do a particular act. However by these threats it cannot be held that the accused-respondents instigated Ashok Kumar to commit suicide. In the suicide note left by the deceased, he has merely stated that "in case Nisha were to come back home, she would ruin the family". Even the said suicide note cannot be held to be indicative of the fact that Nisha and her father, Dilip Kumar, have instigated or intentionally aided Ashok Kumar in committing suicide." 4. Learned counsel have next placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1) SCC 750 , wherein it was held as under:- "Learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 . Learned counsel have next placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1) SCC 750 , wherein it was held as under:- "Learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 . A three-Judge bench of this court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered "you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like". Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court in paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation'. Para 20 reads as under: "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is 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. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 5. Learned State Counsel on the other hand has opposed the petitions. 6. Present case relates to suicide committed by Nahar Singh. Deceased had left behind a suicide note. Trial Court while ordering the framing of charges against the petitioners under Section 306 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC has taken in consideration the suicide note left by the deceased, wherein he had stated that accused had taken a blank cheque from him. Although, he had returned the loan taken by him to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-, complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the deceased by filling in Rs. 2,10,000/- in the blank cheque issued by him. Accused got the house of the deceased sold and gave Rs. 50,000/- to Sedum Ram and kept the deceased in a railway quarter. 25,000/-, complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the deceased by filling in Rs. 2,10,000/- in the blank cheque issued by him. Accused got the house of the deceased sold and gave Rs. 50,000/- to Sedum Ram and kept the deceased in a railway quarter. Accused had made a complaint against the deceased and had got his promotion stopped. As a result, accused Bhupesh Kumar earned a promotion. Deceased had also threatened that he would not be allowed to take the money liable to be paid to him at the time of his retirement. On account of harassment meted out to the deceased at the hands of the accused, he committed suicide. 7. In the circumstances of the present case, learned trial court rightly ordered the framing of charges against the petitioners under Section 306 read with Section 120-B IPC. 8. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners fail to advance the case of the petitioners as they are based on different facts. 9. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.