JUDGMENT V. M. Deshpande, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Heard Mr. A. M. Tirukh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. S. S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant no.1/State and Mr. V. B. Bhise, learned counsel for non-applicant no.2/first informant. 3. By filing this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging registration of crime vide Crime No.25/2019 against them with Police Station, Hiwarkhed, Dist. Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the report lodged by non-applicant no.2. The report is dated 01.02.2019. 4. Applicant nos.1 and 2 are the real sisters, applicant no.3 is their uncle and applicant no.4 is the son of applicant no.3. 5. Non-applicant no.2 complainant was having one son by name Abhijeet. He committed suicide on 02.01.2019 by consuming insecticide in complainants agricultural field. The first information report was lodged on 01.02.2019. Thus there is delay of one month in lodging the report and precisely the first information report is assailed by the learned counsel for the applicants on the said count itself. 6. We are afraid that this submission of the learned counsel for the applicant can be considered as a ground for throwing the prosecution case in dust bin. 7. It is a trite law that it is always open for the prosecution to explain the delay even during the course of the trial. The explanation which is offered by the prosecution at subsequent stage of registration of the first information report and if it is found to be plausible one by the Court, the delay in lodgement of the first information report can never be an impediment in proceeding further in the prosecution case. 8. Be that as it may. The point that has to be determined in this application is as to whether there is abetment on the part of the applicants resulting into commission of suicide by Abhijeet. 9. 8. Be that as it may. The point that has to be determined in this application is as to whether there is abetment on the part of the applicants resulting into commission of suicide by Abhijeet. 9. In the first information report, specific allegations are made by the first informant that deceased Abhijeet was having love affair with Rutika (applicant no.2) and on 03.01.2019 i.e. on the day of commission of suicide when the father made search of Android phone of the deceased, he found that there were WhatsApp chat in between Rutika and the deceased. Also he found audio conversation in between them. In the report, it is further stated that subsequent to commission of suicide, Prashant Khottey, cousin of the first informant, disclosed to him that he had a meeting with the deceased on 31.12.2018 and that time he found that Abhijeet was reeling under mental stress and upon enquiry he diverged to him that Rutika was pressurizing him that he should marry with her, which was not possible for him because of his unemployment at the relevant time. It is also alleged in the report that applicant nos.3 and 4 had extended threat that if Abhijeet will not marry with Rutika, he will have to face the consequences. With these assertions and allegations, the first information report was lodged. 10. This Court issued notices to the respondents on 22.03.2019 and while issuing notices it was observed that though the Investigating Officer may continue with the investigation, he shall not file the charge-sheet without leave of the Court. 11. The respondent/State as well as respondent no.2 have filed their respective replies. Along with the reply filed on behalf of the State, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed on record statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, dated 04.02.2019 by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation. Perusal of the said statement would show that the first informant has turned around insofar as love affair of his deceased son with Rutika in his statement dated 04.02.2019. He states that his deceased son was having love with applicant no.1 Priyanka, real sister of applicant no.2. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has made available to us the investigation papers. He invited our attention to the statements of three witnesses, namely Amol Katkar, Prashant Khotte and Manikrao Wankhede. He states that his deceased son was having love with applicant no.1 Priyanka, real sister of applicant no.2. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has made available to us the investigation papers. He invited our attention to the statements of three witnesses, namely Amol Katkar, Prashant Khotte and Manikrao Wankhede. All these statements were recorded on the very same day on 04.02.2019 i.e. after recording 161 statement of the complainant. Though, in the first information report there is a reference of Prashant Khotte, Amol Katkar also claims that on 31.12.2018 he met with Abhijeet and states alike of Prashant. Manikraos statement shows that he had meeting with Abhijeet on 02.01.2019 and that time he found that the deceases was under mental tension because of his love with Priyanka and her insistence for marriage. 13. Chapter V of the Indian Penal Code deals with abetment. Section 107 reads as under :- 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. 14. By catena of authoritative pronouncements by the Honble Apex Court as well as numerous decisions of this Court, abetment involves mental process instigating a person for doing something. In one of the recent decisions in Ude Singh and others .vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301 , the Honble Apex Court has ruled as under :- "16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased." 15. The first informant is changing his stand in respect of love affair of his son. Firstly he asserts that his son was in love with Rutika and then he changed his version and states that his son was having love with Priyanka. The allegation made against applicant nos.3 and 4 are most general and vague in nature. Further, assuming that either Rutika or Priyanka was in love relation with Abhijeet that by itself cannot be a ground to state that they have abeted the deceased that he should commit suicide. Even from the first information report, it reveals that the first informant found WhatsApp chat in between Rutika and the deceased. Further, assuming that either Rutika or Priyanka was in love relation with Abhijeet that by itself cannot be a ground to state that they have abeted the deceased that he should commit suicide. Even from the first information report, it reveals that the first informant found WhatsApp chat in between Rutika and the deceased. In our view, even that will not be helpful for the prosecution inasmuch as the girl who is in love affair with a person insisting that person/boy that he should culminate their love relation into marriage, in our view, cannot be the abetment. 16. On examination of the material as placed before us by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we are of the view that the applicants cannot be blamed for the suicide committed by the victim. Resultantly, we pass the following order : ORDER 1. Criminal Application (APL) No. 314 of 2019 stands allowed. 2. First Information Report dated 01.02.2019 vide Crime No.25/2019, registered with Police Station, Hiwarkhked, Dist. Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against applicant nos.1 to 4 stands quashed and set aside. 3. Rule is made absolute. The application is disposed of.