JUDGMENT : John Michael Cunha, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1. Perused the records. 2. Petitioner is accused of abetting the death of her husband, who died on 08.12.2012. In the charge sheet, it is stated that deceased had left a death note, whereby he has implicated petitioner herein as the cause for his death. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the medical records produced by the prosecution along with charge sheet clearly indicate that deceased died a natural death. The alleged death note is dated 10.02.2012, whereas deceased met with a natural death nearly 10 months after the alleged note on 08.12.2012. There is nothing in the entire material to suggest that deceased committed suicide. In order to bring the case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC, deceased must have committed suicide. Since the prosecution case is that deceased died due to acute Myocardial infarction, prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJESH vs. STATE OF HARYANA, 2019 AIR SC 478. 4. Argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the instant petition is filed only with a view to prolong the trial and with an intent to pressurize respondent No.2 to agree to the illegal terms of petitioner/accused No.1. The petitioner has already moved an application seeking discharge before the Trial Court and hence, the instant petition is not maintainable. Further, he submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet squarely attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, there is no ground to quash the proceedings. 5. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1 has also argued in line with the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 and has sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have considered the submissions and have perused the records. 7. In the charge sheet, prosecution has given a sketchy narration of the facts which, in my opinion, do not make out the ingredients of the offence under Sections 306 r/w 34 of IPC. 6. I have considered the submissions and have perused the records. 7. In the charge sheet, prosecution has given a sketchy narration of the facts which, in my opinion, do not make out the ingredients of the offence under Sections 306 r/w 34 of IPC. According to the prosecution, accused No.1 was taunting the deceased as impotent and was unable to give her marital satisfaction and was labouring under the belief that she had developed illicit relationship with accused No.2 and on account of this, he left behind a death note and died on 08.12.2012. 8. It is important to note that there are no allegations in the charge sheet that deceased committed suicide or that on account of the provocation given by petitioner herein, deceased was driven to commit suicide. In the absence of any such allegations, in my view, there was absolutely no basis for the investigating agency to lay charge sheet against the petitioner. 9. Section 306 renders the person who abets the commission of suicide punishable for the said offence for which the condition preceded is that suicide should have been committed. Without suicide, there cannot be an abetment of suicide. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that deceased committed suicide, the very prosecution of petitioner for the offence under Section 306 of IPC is legally untenable. 10. In this context, it may be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above. In para 8 thereof, it is held as under: "8. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC." 11. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC." 11. Prosecution appears to have rested its case solely on the death note alleged to have been written by the deceased. The said note does not disclose the cause of death nor does it disclose that it was written in contemplation of his death, as such it does not assume the character of a statement within the meaning of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Even the contents of this note do not get corroboration in the statement of the complainant. In the said note, deceased has nowhere stated that petitioner herein was accusing him of impotency. It reads as under: "My name is C.V. Chetan, whatever happens to me murder death, natural death, suicide death or accident death the persons who will be is my wife Hema & Chaitanya & their parents. As I am loudly saying that the cause of my death will these persons as she has abonded me and my parents for her friend Chaitanya. Chaitanya has left his wife a year ago & now my wife has left me. There is some affair between these two (Hema & Chaitanya) past 5 to 7 years. The cause of my death is these things. As I would ask the police to help me & my parents after my death at any time." 12. The material collected by the investigating agency indicates that the death of deceased was natural. There is no material on record to suggest that deceased committed suicide so as to render the petitioner culpable under Section 306 of IPC. As a result, prosecution of the petitioner being wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court, the proceedings pending against petitioner are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C.No.52/2015 (now pending in CCH-62) for the offence punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 of IPC is quashed.