JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By filing this application, the applicant, who is wife of deceased, has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of F.I.R. being F.I.R. No. 160 of 2017, dated 13.7.2017 registered by Police Station, Ladkhed against her on the strength of report lodged by non-applicant no. 2, mother of deceased, upon which offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is registered by non-applicant no. 1. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to present application can be stated as under: Deceased Rajkumar Santosh Giri was married to applicant in the year 2011, however, had no issue and had, therefore, adopted one boy named Rohit, aged three years. Deceased was working as a Clerk in the Health Department at village Gharefal, District Yavatmal. It is alleged in the report that, as applicant did not conceive after marriage, she used to insult deceased as such causing him mental torture, due to which there was matrimonial discord and both were indulging in frequent quarrels. It is further alleged that, in the background of above facts, applicant got indulged with one Rahul Chavan, who was residing in the neighbourhood and their intimacy was known to their family members and as applicant found Complainant to be hurdle in their life, applicant drove her out of house and had also given threats to Complainant to involve her in some false case, due to which Complainant preferred to reside at Amravati with her daughter. It is further alleged in the report that, on 14.5.2017, dead body of deceased Rajkumar was found in a well situated in the field owned by one Balwant Jadhav at village Lasina. According to non-applicant no. 2, due to behaviour of applicant, applicant abetted commission of suicide by deceased. Mr. M.N. Ali, learned Counsel for the applicant contended that, from bare perusal of the report, no offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out from the contents thereof and has further submitted that there is, thus, nothing to establish that deceased was instigated or was abetted or aided by applicant to commit suicide. However, since the applicant is falsely involved, application is prayed to be allowed. 4. On filing application, directions were issued by this Court to not to file charge-sheet. Investigation is complete. However, since the applicant is falsely involved, application is prayed to be allowed. 4. On filing application, directions were issued by this Court to not to file charge-sheet. Investigation is complete. However, due to order as aforesaid, no charge-sheet could be filed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced case diary. We have perused the same and having found that though report was lodged by non-applicant no. 2 on 16.5.2017, no offence was registered till 13.7.2017. To a specific query put to learned Additional Public Prosecutor on this aspect, prosecution has filed Additional affidavit on record dt.21.1.2019. According to it, on receipt of information from Balwant Jadhav, Marg A.D. No. 29 of 2017 was registered and in spite of receipt of report from non-applicant no. 2 on 16.5.2017, in Post Mortem report since no probable cause of death was stated, offence could not be registered. It is further stated that thereafter Investigating Officer since was transferred on 27.5.2017 and his successor Mr. Vasant Madavi, P.S.I. joined on 12.6.2017, he took over investigation. However, since he could not contact non-applicant no. 2 even after several attempts, registered offence on 13.7.2017 when she ultimately visited the Police Station. According to Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, entire investigation in the crime is complete and Charge-sheet came to be filed. 5. While opposing the application, it is submitted that, according to Complainant, as applicant was not conceiving, she used to quarrel with the deceased and also used to give threats to him to transfer his property in her name and was also involved in extramarital affairs with one Rahul Chavan and since Complainant was found to be hurdle in between her relations with said Rahul Chavan, she was driven out of the house. The learned Counsel has, thus, contended that such treatment provided by applicant to deceased and his mother abetted deceased Rajkumar to commit suicide, of which report is lodged as aforesaid. 6. Perusal of case diary would reveal that, during investigation in Marg A.D. No. 29 of 2017, dead body was referred for autopsy. However, since it was decomposed, opinion as to probable cause of death was reserved. Viscera Report was not available. 6. Perusal of case diary would reveal that, during investigation in Marg A.D. No. 29 of 2017, dead body was referred for autopsy. However, since it was decomposed, opinion as to probable cause of death was reserved. Viscera Report was not available. During the course of investigation, we find that the Investigating Officer, on 24.12.2018, obtained "Cause of Death Certificate" according to which, possibility of death of deceased due to drowning cannot be ruled out and according to Viscera Report, no poison is detected in the stomach and its contents. 7. Perusal of statements of relatives of deceased being sisters and brother-in-law are recorded, who have stated that, since applicant was unable to conceive, she used to accuse deceased being impotent and as such, was causing mental harassment to him. As affidavit-in-reply filed by non-applicant no. 1 was dt.16.1.2018, this Court had directed prosecution to file additional affidavit-in-reply as, in the earlier reply, investigation was stated to be in progress. In compliance to above order, though prosecution has filed additional affidavit-in-reply on 21.1.2019 and by filing the same on record, had brought on record probable cause of death of deceased as aforesaid and reason for non-registration of offence on 16.5.2017 when report was lodged by non-applicant no. 2, reply does not spell out anything else involving applicant in the present crime. 8. Similarly, perusal of statement of mother of deceased as well as of neighbours would reveal that there was no child born to applicant, who was married to deceased in the year 2011 and thus, in the year 2014, they had adopted one boy. Their statements would further reveal that, about one year prior to the incident, one Rahul Chavan used to visit house of applicant as he had come to reside with her relations and had developed friendship with applicant. Statements of neighbours only reveal that Rahul Chavan was on visiting terms to the house of applicant. However, neither of the neighbours had visited the house of applicant and had stated that since said Rahul was knowing applicant and her family, when he came to reside with his relative Bhaskar Dhumne in the same locality, was visiting house of applicant. Statements of neighbours only reveal that Rahul Chavan was on visiting terms to the house of applicant. However, neither of the neighbours had visited the house of applicant and had stated that since said Rahul was knowing applicant and her family, when he came to reside with his relative Bhaskar Dhumne in the same locality, was visiting house of applicant. Considering statements as aforesaid, thus, allegations made against applicant are totally vague as, what is stated by witnesses is that one Rahul was visiting to the house of applicant since about one year before, who, admittedly was knowing applicant since prior to his coming to reside with his relative, who was residing as neighbour of applicant. Similarly, though, according to Complainant, applicant since did not conceive, her relations with deceased were strained on this count, admittedly said couple in the year 2014 itself had adopted one boy Rohit. In view of said fact, there appears no substance about relations between deceased and applicant to be strained on the issue of applicant having not conceived from the deceased. 9. By now, in a catena of judgments, the Apex Court has considered the scope and meaning of "abetment" under Sections 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code to find out whether the charge and conviction for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code can be sustained merely on the allegations of harassment of the deceased and whether the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the basis of the statement of the deceased. 10. In order to properly comprehend the scope and ambit of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is important to carefully examine the basic ingredients of Section 306. The said Section, is reproduced, thus: "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." "Abetment" has been defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The said Section, is reproduced, thus: "107. Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who:- First - Instigates any person to do that thing. The said Section, is reproduced, thus: "107. Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who:- First - Instigates any person to do that thing. 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. 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. Illustration: A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 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." 16. Thus, the offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. As such, in case of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. 11. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. As such, in case of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. 11. In the given facts, we find it useful to refer to the case of Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) AllMR (Cri) 3245 (SC), wherein, on considering alleged Suicide note and F.I.R. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus: "11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this." Further observed that the suicide note and the F.I.R. do not impress at all as they cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to work. 12. In the case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, (2010) AllMR (Cri) 3298 (SC), the facts are as follows: "There was a dispute between one Saurao Mahajan, who was a final year student of Law Department and Harminder Singh, a fellow student of the same class with regard to the theft of a mobile phone. This came to the notice of M.D. Singh, the then Head of the Law Department who asked both the students to submit their versions of the incident in writing. The deceased and Harminder gave their versions and, thereafter, M.D. Singh forwarded their versions to the University authorities for taking necessary action. This came to the notice of M.D. Singh, the then Head of the Law Department who asked both the students to submit their versions of the incident in writing. The deceased and Harminder gave their versions and, thereafter, M.D. Singh forwarded their versions to the University authorities for taking necessary action. An inquiry was conducted on 13th October 2003 by the Security Officer of the University Shri S.S. Chheena. During the course of inquiry, on 17th October 2003, Saurav Mahajan committed suicide by jumping in front of the train. A suicide note was seized from the pocket of the deceased. On the complaint of father of the deceased, an offence under section 306 of I.P.C. was registered against Harminder Singh. During the course of trial, S.S. Cheena was also impleaded as accused. Being aggrieved by the framing of charge, S.S. Cheena approached the High Court. The High Court refused to interfere. Being aggrieved thereby, said S.S. Cheena approached the Supreme Court. The Apex Court observed thus: "27. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words "instigation" and "goading." The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 13. Considering the ratio of Hon'ble Apex Court in above cited Judgments, we find that there is no sufficient evidence to proceed against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code as, for proceeding for trial, it is atleast prima facie necessary for prosecution to establish that 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. An abatement involves mental process of instigating the person or intentionally aiding the person for doing of a thing. In the absence of availability of such material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 306. An abatement involves mental process of instigating the person or intentionally aiding the person for doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, the said person cannot be compelled to face a trial. Unless there is clear mens rea to commit the offence or an 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 cannot be permitted. 14. After considering the above legal position when the F.I.R. as stated herein above in the application in hand is perused, do not spell out any of the ingredient attracting Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. On bare perusal of the F.I.R. by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the applicants in any way abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Similarly, the statements on record would also not support the case of the prosecution involving the applicants in the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. On the contrary, as already stated aforesaid, statements on record would establish that since applicant was not conceiving after her marriage with deceased in 2011, they had adopted a child in 2014. In that view of the matter, there appears no substance in the case of prosecution of applicant providing mental torture to her husband on this issue and this reason thus by itself do not directly or indirectly establish involvement of applicant for commission of suicide of deceased as there is nothing on record to show that applicant intentionally or in any manner, is engaged in abetting the same or has instigated the deceased to commit suicide at any point of time. 17. 17. The law relied by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the case of Narayan Malhari Thorat vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2018 with Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 7933 of 2018), dated 28.11.2018 cannot be applied having distinguishing facts as, in that case, there were definite allegations that the 1st respondent would keep on calling wife of victim on her mobile and keep harassing her, which allegations were supported by statements of mother and wife of victim recorded during the course of investigation. Similarly, 3-4 days prior to the incident of suicide, there was altercation between victim and 1st respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegations against 1st respondent, the High Court was not held to be justified in entering into the question whether the 1st respondent had requisite intention to aid or instigate or to abet commission of suicide. Even investigation in that case was not complete when the application for quashing was filed and thus, it was further observed that as no investigation was complete and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on the part of respondent. 18. In view of above facts, since the facts involved in the present application are found totally distinguishing and as investigation is complete, in the absence of any material, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that the applicant is even not remotely connected with the present crime as the documents in the case diary do not establish ingredients of abetment and since said ingredient is totally absent in the instant case, applicant cannot be compelled for any action for offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code as there is absolutely no positive act found attributed to applicant in the case involving her husband's death. In that view of the matter, application is liable to be allowed. 19. Criminal Application is, therefore allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the application with no orders as to costs.