ORDER : This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the order dated 03.11.2014 and discharge the petitioner of the offence alleged under section 306 of IPC in S.C.No.693/2014. 2. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased Sri.Rajaram Mohan Roy. Their marriage was performed on 02.05.2011. The case of the prosecution is that, two months after the marriage, the petitioner began to stay in her parents’ house and when the deceased requested her to return home, she used to pick up quarrel with the deceased and abuse him and in the month of February 2012, she went to the house of her parents for delivery and when the deceased visited her to see the girl child, petitioner refused to talk with the deceased and insulted him and when he requested her to accompany him to the matrimonial home, petitioner refused to go with the deceased and told him that she is not interested to live with him and asked him to go and die and that she would find solace only if he is dead. In view of the insult heaped on the deceased and the provocation given by the petitioner, the deceased is stated to have committed suicide by hanging. 3. During the course of investigation, a death note written by the deceased was traced and based on the said death note as well as the statements of the immediate relatives of the deceased, charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner under section 306 of IPC. The application filed by the petitioner for her discharge has been rejected by the Trial Court by its order dated 03.11.2014. Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this petition inter alia contending that the facts averred in the charge sheet do not make out the ingredients of the alleged offences and under the said circumstances, continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court and hence the petitioner has sought to set aside the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP and have carefully scrutinized the material on record. 5(i). 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP and have carefully scrutinized the material on record. 5(i). Referring to the death note relied on by the prosecution, learned counsel for petitioner vehemently submitted that the statement made in the said death note, even if accepted as true, would indicate that the deceased was depressed in life which was the immediate cause for him to commit suicide. There is nothing in the said death note to indicate that the petitioner had given any instigation or provocation to the deceased to end his life. Prosecution has not gathered any material to show that during the lifetime of the deceased, any complaint was lodged by the deceased to any authority complaining illtreatment or harassment by the petitioner. The contents of the death note and the allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not disclose any intention on the part of the petitioner to instigate or provoke the deceased to commit suicide. 5(ii) Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of M.MOHAN vs. THE STATE represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Criminal Appeal No.612/2011 decided on 01.03.2011); STATE OF KERALA vs. S.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR & Others (Criminal Appeal No.2086/2014 decided on 13.08.2015); SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR vs. STATE OF M.P. (APPEAL (Crl.) No.572/2002 decided on 01.05.2002); CHITRESH KUMAR CHOPRA vs. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Criminal Appeal No.1473/2009 decided on 10.08.2009) and RAJESH vs. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No.93/2019 decided on 18.01.2019), learned counsel for petitioner emphasized that, in order to make out an offence under section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to prima facie make out that the petitioner abetted commission of the offence. The term “abetment” is defined under section 107 of IPC. As per the said provision, A person is said to abet 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 wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful 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 authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 5(iii) “Instigation” means, “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.” 5(iv) It is the submission of the learned counsel that in the instant case, there are no allegations making out either instigation or abetment, rather the contents of the death note and the statements of the witnesses indicate that the deceased was suffering from depression. The words attributed to the petitioner in the charge sheet, even if accepted as true, do not amount to instigation within the meaning of section 107 of IPC. Hence, the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner are bad in law. 5(v) Further referring to SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR vs. STATE OF M.P., learned counsel pointed out that, “a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” In the said circumstance, even if it is assumed that the petitioner asked the deceased to go and die and that she would find solace only when he is dead by itself does not constitute “instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes active incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. The word “instigate” denotes active incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that, in the absence of any mens rea on the part of the petitioner, the prosecution of the petitioner solely based on the alleged death note is legally untenable and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be discharged of the alleged offence. 6. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent/State however argued in support of the impugned action, contending that the material collected by the Investigating Agency prima facie disclose the ingredients of section 306 of IPC and as such, there is no ground to discharge the petitioner of the alleged offence. 7. On bestowing my careful consideration to the submissions made at the Bar and on going through the material on record, I am of the view that sufficient material is available on record to proceed against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner and the deceased got married on 02.05.2011. The averments made in the FIR as well as the material collected during the investigation indicate that differences had arisen between the parties within two months after the marriage and it is the specific case of the prosecution that all throughout the matrimonial life, petitioner has been residing in her parents’ house and was refusing to join the deceased. Though there is no material on record to show that on account of this conduct of the petitioner, the deceased had taken recourse to any civil or matrimonial proceedings, but that by itself does not absolve the petitioner of the charges leveled against her, especially in view of the statement made by the deceased in the death note. The death note left behind by the deceased reads as under: 27/3/2013 How can I lead life with U Veronica U have insulted me, I cannot lead life with U. U are not supportive U are problem creator. U have insulted me so I am taking extreme steps. This is not suicide U have murdered me, Veronica is responsible for any death. U have insulted me so I am taking extreme steps. This is not suicide U have murdered me, Veronica is responsible for any death. Anna I am so depressed I am very sorry haa, Anne and Anni please take care of my mother Anna and Anni please take care of my mother Anna and Mummy, U both advised me but still I am depressed. Daddy Mummy Amma Anna Anni Akka Eibby Abel I am leaving this world I am sorry Thanking U 8. Though it is vehemently argued by learned counsel for petitioner that the contents of the said death note read as a whole do not make out either instigation or provocation, driving the deceased to commit suicide, but on considering the statement made therein along with the statements of the material witnesses examined by the prosecution, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. As could be seen from the above death note, there are clear allegations that the petitioner has insulted the deceased and on account of the insult, he was driven to take extreme step. Though the manner in which the petitioner was insulted has not been extensively narrated in the death note, yet, the surrounding circumstances spoken to by the prosecution witnesses clearly brings out the reason for the deceased to end his life. 9. It is trite law that this Court in exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot hold any mini trial or express any opinion on the evidence collected by the prosecution long as the evidence produced in support of the accusations is found relevant and prima facie disclose commission of offence, the accused cannot be discharged of the alleged offences. Though much has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that contents of the said death note and the statements of the witnesses do not amount to instigation within the meaning of section 107 IPC, yet it should not be forgotten, even the provocation is also one of the ingredients of abetment defined under section 107 IPC. Even assuming that there was no instigation by the petitioner, yet, a reading of the death note clearly indicates that there was provocation by the petitioner. Even assuming that there was no instigation by the petitioner, yet, a reading of the death note clearly indicates that there was provocation by the petitioner. As such, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner that the contents of the death note and the allegations made in the statements of the prosecution witnesses are not sufficient to proceed against the petitioner for the alleged offence. As a result, I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order dated 03.11.2014 and as such, petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.