ORDER 1. Notice issued to respondent No. 2 on 11.9.2017 returned unserved as "refused" by the addressee. It is deemed to be served. Considered I.A. Nos. 3982/2016 and 3384/2017, applications for taking documents on record. I.A. Nos. 3982/2016 and 3384/2017 are allowed. Documents are taken on record. These documents are cogent and necessary for disposal of this petition. 2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of CrPC for invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR at Crime No. 242/2015 registered at Police Station Shahgarh District Sagar for offence under section 306 of IPC against the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that, Shalu @ Bhaskar Pandey, aged about 22 years, died on 22.4.2015. In the post-mortem report dated 22.4.2015, no opinion about the cause of death has been opined. Viscera was preserved for chemical examination. It was sent for chemical examination. The report of the Forensic Laboratory Science received shows that there is Furadan [Carbonate (Pesticide)], which indicates that deceased died due to consumption of certain pesticide. 4. After the merg report, inquest was made. Police Station Shahgarh having found prima-facie offence against the petitioner registered the offence under section 306 read with section 34 of IPC on 18.12.2015 against the petitioner Archana and her father Devkinandan Kaushik. 5. Witnesses including parents of the deceased have stated that the deceased had a love affair with the petitioner Archana. The petitioner and her father insisted the deceased Shalu @ Bhaskar to get married with the petitioner Archana. They have also threatened that if he does not go for the marriage, they will implicate him in some grievous offence. Because of this pressure, deceased consumed pesticide and committed suicide. Pappu Adiwasi has stated that at about 1 pm on 22.4.2015, the deceased told him that he is suffering from fever, when Pappu asked him to take medicines Shalu @ Bhaskar was seen with some tablets on his hand, which were sulphas (pesticide). Shalu @ Bhaskar consumed those sulphas tablets. After sometime, he came to the deceased and tried to pull out the tablets by putting his finger on his mouth. When he asked Shalu why he has taken sulphas tablets, he replied that petitioner Archana and her father Devkinandan pressurized him to perform marriage with Archana, therefore, he has consumed the sulphas tablets. After sometime, he came to the deceased and tried to pull out the tablets by putting his finger on his mouth. When he asked Shalu why he has taken sulphas tablets, he replied that petitioner Archana and her father Devkinandan pressurized him to perform marriage with Archana, therefore, he has consumed the sulphas tablets. He immediately rushed up to Shantu Maharaj and along with Shantu Maharaj, Shalu @ Bhaskar was taken to hospital, however, on the way to Sagar, Shalu @ Bhaskar died. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. Petitioner has never abated the deceased to commit suicide. The FIR registered against the petitioner is abuse of process of law. Even if prima facie evidence available on record is considered to be true in it's entirety, no offence under section 306 of IPC is made out. To wreck vengeance, the complaint has been made on behalf of respondent/State, the application is vehemently opposed. It is contended that because of the pressure by the petitioner and her father, deceased committed suicide having no other alternative, therefore, the offence under section 306 of IPC registered against the petitioner does not call for any interference. 7. It would be appropriate to reproduce, the provisions of 306 of IPC for better understanding of the same : S.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. 8. It is also necessary to understand what actual constitute abetment. Abetment has been defined under section 107 IPC which reads as follows: S.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 takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1: A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. 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. 9. Abatement to commit suicide has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Ram Naresh v. State of M.P. [2002(2) MPHT], 183 and it is held that : The accused persons were chargesheeted under section 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of a suicide note left by the deceased in which he had blamed all the five accused and held them responsible for his (suicidal) death. However, it was found that none of the accused had goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to refund/repay the amount of loan advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. Moreover, the deceased could have lodged a report against accused who had allegedly tortured him and threatened him to kill. May be, as it sometimes happens, the police officials might have declined to record the report. In that case, he could have moved higher officials. But instead of taking this legal and legitimate action, the deceased adopted an escapist course of committing suicide in order to take revenge from his alleged tormentors. No case for alleged commission of the offence was made out against the accused persons. 10. The deceased seems to have committed suicide by taking pesticide. Even if prima-facie evidence is taken to be true in it's entirety, the petitioner's intention has to be seen, if at all they tried to pressurize the deceased Bhaskar @ Shalu to get married with Archana, they never intended that Bhaskar should commit suicide. Therefore, the main ingredient of "abatement" is completely missing in the present case. May be deceased was hyper sensitive to the ordinary petulance between him and petitioner. Therefore, the main ingredient of "abatement" is completely missing in the present case. May be deceased was hyper sensitive to the ordinary petulance between him and petitioner. In the case of Ganguly Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ 2010(1) SCC 750 ], the Hon'ble apex Court has opined that : "Abetment" involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thingWithout a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained- In order to convict a person under section 306, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide- Also, reiterated, if it appears to Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, conscience of Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty- Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in day-today- life- In facts and circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under section 306 made out. Hence, appellant's conviction, held, unsustainable. 11. Keeping in view the above circumstances, as the mens rea to commit the offence is lacking in the present case, it would not be proper for the petitioner to face the trial under section 306 of IPC, when the offence is prima facie not made out. 12. In the light of the above provisions of law and the settled legal positions crystallized by the series of the judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble apex Court, the petitioner cannot be allowed to face the trial for offence under section 306 of IPC. 13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR and subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.