JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned P.P. and the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material on record. 2. By way of this revision, the petitioner Sohan Lal has approached this Court for assailing the order dated 4.8.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 4, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 27/2014 whereby the trial court directed to frame charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC. 3. The F.I.R. in relation to suicide committed by Laxman was lodged by his brother Shyam Sunder at P.S. Deshnok on 8.4.2014. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that Laxman committed suicide because he was perturbed by offensive behaviour of Uma Ram, Uma Ram''s wife, Sohan Lal and Narayan Ram sons of Uma Ram who were continuously giving threats that they would kill Laxman who confided with the complaint about these threats being given to him by these four persons. Laxman left behind him a suicide note before ending his life. The I.O. recovered the suicide note written by Shri Laxman in which he wrote that he was ending his life because he was perturbed by the threats being given to him by Uma Ram, Uma Ram''s wife and his two sons. At the end of suicide note it was mentioned that Uma Ram''s wife and son Sohan Lal had destroyed his family and that Sohan Lal was a dangerous person. Apart from this suicide note, statements of various witnesses were recorded during investigation who vaguely stated that all the four persons named in the F.I.R. i.e. Uma Ram, his wife and his two sons used to hurl threats at the deceased. However, neither did any witness examined during investigation specify any particular incident of instigation given to the deceased for ending his life nor did the deceased Laxman refer to any such instance in the suicide note. On the contrary, the statements of numerous witnesses examined during investigation are indicative about existence of a long standing dispute between the parties in relation to Patta of a land which was got issued by Laxman regarding the land actually owned by Uma Ram. On the contrary, the statements of numerous witnesses examined during investigation are indicative about existence of a long standing dispute between the parties in relation to Patta of a land which was got issued by Laxman regarding the land actually owned by Uma Ram. In order to frame charge for the offence under Section 306 IPC against any accused, the prosecution has to present unimpeachable and cogent material to satisfy the Court that the accused concerned, instigated or abetted the victim to such an extent that he was left with no option but to end his life. 4. As discussed above, there is an absolute dearth of evidence which could give rise to even a remotest suggestion, that the petitioner in any manner instigated or abetted the deceased Laxman to commit suicide. Simply because four accused named in the F.I.R. allegedly gave threats of killing to the deceased, that by itself cannot be considered a ground to hold the accused petitioner responsible for the suicide committed by Shri Laxman. 5. In this background I am of the firm opinion that the charge framed against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC vide order dated 4.8.2014 is grossly illegal and cannot be sustained. 6. Consequently, the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 4.8.2014 is hereby set aside. The accused petitioner is discharged from the offence under Section 306 IPC.