ORDER : Shri Arvind Singh Chouhan, Advocate for applicant. Shri Shailesh Khamparia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for Respondent/State. Inherent powers of this Court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code are invoked to assail the FIR bearing Crime No. 233/16 registered at Police Station Kundam alleging the offence punishable under section 306, Indian Penal Code along with the chargesheet and the consequential proceedings pending before the trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing the attention of this Court towards contents of the FIR submits that bare reading of the same does not reveal the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is submitted that the allegations merely reveal that both the petitioners who are husband and wife used to subject the deceased to mental cruelty by hurling abusive words and threatening to subject her to rape, which compelled the deceased to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance. The allegation further reveals that the threats and abuses were extended due to animus arising from denial of the deceased to allow the petitioner No. 2 to accompany the deceased to outings. The celebrated decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 is relied upon for seeking quashment of FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix on the other hand supported the allegation made in the FIR and the chargesheet and submits that there is enough material to sustain the prosecution against the petitioners for the offences punishable under section 306, Indian Penal Code. 5. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that there was bad blood between the deceased and the petitioner No. 2, since the deceased had refused to allow the petitioner No. 2 to accompany her on outings. Owing to this strained relationship, it is alleged that petitioners used to hurl abuses and threaten deceased as aforesaid. The allegations reveal that piqued by the said threat, abuses and intimidation, the deceased consumed poisonous substance (acid). The deceased was admitted to the National Hospital on 11-10-2015 on 5.15 pm. Owing to this strained relationship, it is alleged that petitioners used to hurl abuses and threaten deceased as aforesaid. The allegations reveal that piqued by the said threat, abuses and intimidation, the deceased consumed poisonous substance (acid). The deceased was admitted to the National Hospital on 11-10-2015 on 5.15 pm. The statement of the deceased was recorded under section 161 on 11-10-2016 during the period of hospitalisation where she reveals that on 11-10-2016 at about 2 p.m. when she was standing outside her house to see off her sister who had come calling on her, both the petitioners came on the spot and hurled abuses and threats to the deceased which impelled the deceased to go inside her house and consume acid. The deceased died on 12-10-2016 whereafter postmortem was conducted disclosing the death to have taken place within 24 hours and reserving the opinion regarding cause of death till receipt of forensic report of viscera preserved. The FSL report is informed to be awaited. Meanwhile, police recorded statement of witnesses under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code which were more or less in the same lines as the contents of the FIR. 6. From the above allegations that comes out loud and clear is that the deceased committed suicide by consuming acid merely after being enraged or piqued by the abuses and intimidation extended by the petitioners. Admittedly, the deceased was a woman aged about 48 years and therefore was mature enough not to be influenced by mere abuses or threats to the extent of resolving and terminating her life. The cause of threat and intimidation shown does not have a live and proximate link with the suicide. No man or woman of ordinary prudence of the age of 48 years can commit suicide merely because of being subjected to abuses or threats. 6.1 This Court while dealing with case attended with similar circumstances in Cr.R. No. 306/2017 (Subhash Singh and ors. vs. State of M.P.) dated 24-4-2018] where threats and intimidation were alleged as cause to alleged abetment to suicide held that the said cause is insufficient to satisfy the basic ingredients of abetment defined under section 107 of, Indian Penal Code and thus the Court proceeded to hold that due to absence of live and proximate link between cause and suicide, the foundational ingredients of offence under section 306, Indian Penal Code is not made out. The relevant extract of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 is reproduced below :— 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would be profitable to set out section 306 of the Code : “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.” 10. “Abetment” has been defined under section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce section 107, which reads as under : “107. Abetment of athing.—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 takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly — Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107 reads as under : “Explanation 2 — Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh and another v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731. In the case of Mahendra Singh, the allegations levelled were as under :— “1.....My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.” The Court on aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.” The Court on aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under section 306, Indian Penal Code merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. 12. Learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. 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.” 6.2 Having held supra, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned allegations cannot in the ordinary course of nature and for a person of ordinary prudence become cause for committing suicide. Abuses and intimidation may at best lead to a reaction of anger, hatred, fear and depression. Abuses and intimidation may at best lead to a reaction of anger, hatred, fear and depression. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned prosecution under section 306 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code is unsustainable on the anvil of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below :— “108……………… 1. Where the allegations made in the first information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. ……….. 3. ……….. 4. ……….. 5. Whether the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which not prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” 7. Consequently, allowing the impugned prosecution to proceed would be an exercise in futility which would never be able to sustain a conviction under section 306, Indian Penal Code and therefore this Court is inclined to truncate the impugned prosecution at this very stage to save the petitioners from the travails of a long drawn futile litigation. 8. This Court invoking it’s inherent powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code quashes the FIR bearing Crime No. 233/2016 registered at PS, Kundam, consequential chargesheet and the criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court. 9. With the aforesaid this petition stands allowed. No cost. Petition allowed.