JUDGMENT : P. N. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Applicant has approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. No.203 of 2017, dt.17.6.2017 registered with Wardha Police Station by non-applicant no.1 on the strength of report lodged by non-applicant no.2. Report as such came to be filed alleging that the deceased, who was husband of non-applicant no.2, had purchased a two wheeler in the month of May, 2016 by making down payment of Rs.20,000/. During his life time, the deceased was working at “Zunka Bhakar Centre” and also in the Courier Company. When he purchased two wheeler, complainant was pregnant and as such, deceased was required to make expenses for her medicines and other medical treatments which resulted into his facing financial crunch and has, therefore, obtained Rs.20,000/as loan from the applicant by keeping his motor cycle with applicant and on paying interest @ 6 % on Rs.20,000/. According to complainant, she learnt about obtaining such hand loan by her deceased husband, from him during December, 2016 when the deceased had informed her about said transaction and has further contended that, on 7.5.2017, the deceased had visited Nashik to demand Rs.5,000/from his father-in-law. However, on 10.5.2017, he died in rail accident at Dahegaon, which fact was brought to the notice of complainant on 12.5.2017 when, on registering Marg No.23 of 2017, she was informed of finding of suicide note alleged to be in the handwriting of deceased involving the applicant and thus, she lodged her report, upon which offence as aforesaid came to be registered. In the report it is alleged that the applicant, inspite of accepting amount advanced on interest to deceased as loan, failed to return back his vehicle, due to which he committed suicide. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that on 10.5.2017, the husband of informant met accidental death and thereafter, Marg was registered under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure. During enquiry of Marg, statement of informant and other persons were also recorded in which they did not make any allegation against the applicant and bare perusal of FIR would reveal that even if contents therein are taken to be true, no offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is made out. The facts do not disclose ingredients under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The facts do not disclose ingredients under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The so-called instigation by the applicant is missing from the FIR and therefore, FIR is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Ms M.H.Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the application submitted that from the suicide note on record, applicant's involvement is clearly established as his name is mentioned therein to have not returned the vehicle of deceased inspite of receipt of amount of loan advanced by him and has, therefore, contended that the applicant as such aided and abetted suicide. 5. The case of prosecution as such is mainly resting upon two suicide notes. Bare perusal of these notes would however reveal that neither of these notes bear any dates; while from one of the suicide notes it appears that the deceased was indebted to so many other persons who were named in one of the suicide notes. Though name of applicant is also mentioned in one of the suicide notes alleging that applicant inspite of his receiving amount failed to deliver vehicle to deceased, there is nothing to establish if these notes are in the handwriting of deceased inasmuch as from the case diary made available by prosecution, the opinion of handwriting expert is against prosecution when it is opined that for want of more admitted natural writings for comparisons, it is not possible to express any definite opinion with regards to the suicide notes involved in the present crime if they are in the handwriting of deceased. When both the suicide notes as such are kept out of consideration, there is no iota of evidence establishing involvement of applicant in the present crime. 6. Mr.R.R.Vyas, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the law with regards to ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is elaborately discussed by this Court in the case of Dilip s/o. Ramrao Shirasrao and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2016 AllMR (Cri) 4328 and after considering all the earlier Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex, the Court has held thus : “20. vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2016 AllMR (Cri) 4328 and after considering all the earlier Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex, the Court has held thus : “20. As has been held by Their Lordships of the Apex Court that for permitting a trial to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to at least prima facie establish that the accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of availability of such material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. As has been held by Their Lordships of the Apex Court that abetment involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, the said persons cannot be compelled to face the trial. Unless there is clear mens rea to commit an offence or active act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option or the act intending to push the deceased into such a position, the trial against the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, in our considered view, would be an abuse of process of law. ” 7. In the present case, taking the allegations at its face value, it cannot be said that any positive or proximate act is attributed to the present applicant. Assuming for a moment that the allegation of applicant's not returning the motor cycle to deceased, that by itself cannot said to be an instigation to a person to commit suicide as there may be more such reasons or deceased may also be a sensitive person having not been in a position to tolerate fact of his having indebted to various persons thereby causing loss to his reputation. Having considering the facts involved in the application as aforesaid, we do not find that there exists sufficient grounds to continue the proceedings for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicant. As such, the Criminal Application is allowed. Having considering the facts involved in the application as aforesaid, we do not find that there exists sufficient grounds to continue the proceedings for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicant. As such, the Criminal Application is allowed. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (2) of the application. No order as to costs.