JUDGMENT This revision coming on for order this day, the court passed the following: 1. This criminal revision u/S 397 r/W 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 23.03.2021, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagda Distt. Ujjain, whereby petitioner's application filed u/S 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the charges u/S 306 r/W 34 of IPC and also u/S 3/4 of M.P. Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 (the Act of 1937 hereinafter) was rejected. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that ASI Suresh Songara received an information about the death of deceased Ratanlal Purohit at P.S. Nagda Distt. Ujjain. He after registering the Merg Intimation Report bearing No. 64/2020, reached the spot and found the dead body of deceased Ratanlal Purohit hanging to noose in his rented room. He called the witnesses issuing safina form and prepared nakshapanchayatnama of the dead body of deceased. He recovered and seized a suicide note kept in the pocket of deceased's shirt alongwith a mobile phone. He also seized deceased's driving license, ATM card and rope, used by him in committing suicide. ASI Suresh Songara on the basis of suicide note so seized, wherein it was stated that deceased committed suicide due to harassment made by the petitioner and co-accused persons, registered FIR bearing Crime No. 532/2020 against the petitioner and co-accused persons for the offences punishable u/S 306 of IPC and 3/4 of the Act of 1937. 3. During investigation, it was found that deceased was facing financial crisis during the lock-down period, due to which he took loan from the petitioner and other co-accused persons, but he could not be able to return the loan amount so advanced to him by the petitioner and other co-accused persons. As a result, they started threatening and harassing the deceased. Being piqued by the said harassment, deceased committed suicide. Petitioner was arrested and a cheque bearing no. 06494431 was seized from his possession. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. After committal of the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, petitioner moved an application u/S 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the charges alleged against him, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 23.03.2021 and charges u/S 306 of IPC and u/S 3/4 of the Act of 1937, were framed against him. 3. After committal of the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, petitioner moved an application u/S 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the charges alleged against him, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 23.03.2021 and charges u/S 306 of IPC and u/S 3/4 of the Act of 1937, were framed against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the suicide note, left by the deceased. Petitioner's name is Govind Chouhan, while the person named in the suicide note is Govind Sen. He has been implicated in the matter only because his name is Govind. He further submits that for the sake of arguments, if allegations alleged against him were presumed to be true, even then, ingredients of Section 306 of IPC will not get attracted in the case. The act of demanding back the amount of loan so advanced cannot be said to be 'Abetment' u/S 107 of IPC. There is no documentary evidence about the fact that the petitioner advanced any loan to the deceased. Moreso, petitioner has never threatened the deceased. Even if the whole prosecution evidence is accepted, then also conviction of the petitioner is not probable at all. Therefore, charges framed u/S 306 of IPC and Sec 3/4 of the Act of 1937 are not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. In support of his above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State Represented by its Inspector of Police[ (2019) 3 SCC 315 ] and the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Ved Prakash Bhaiji Vs. State of M.P. [ 1994 JLJ 758 ] and also in the case of Dinesh Vs. State of M.P. [ 2016(III) MPWN 103 ]. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and referring to arrest memo as well as seizure memo submits that it has specifically been mentioned therein that petitioner is a barber and runs a Hair Salon. Therefore, only by writing surname 'Chouhan', it cannot be said that he is some other person than that of Govind Sen. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and referring to arrest memo as well as seizure memo submits that it has specifically been mentioned therein that petitioner is a barber and runs a Hair Salon. Therefore, only by writing surname 'Chouhan', it cannot be said that he is some other person than that of Govind Sen. He further submits that suicide note written by the deceased specifically reveals that the petitioner had taken his cheque and on the basis of which he used to harass the deceased mentally for return of loan amount advanced to him. Prosecution witnesses have also supported the prosecution case, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that its a case of no evidence. Hence, learned trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charge u/S 306 of IPC and Sec 3/4 of the Act of 1937, against the petitioner. 5. Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 6. Before adverting further, at this stage it is apposite to mention few decisions of this court as well as Hon'ble the Apex Court, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case. 7. In Ved Prakash Tarachand Bhaji V. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1994 JLJ 758 ), while dealing with the ambit scope and applicability of section 107 0f IPC it has been held as under: "10. As per definition given in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code abetement is constituted by:- i) Instigating a person to commit an offence; or ii) engaging' in a conspiracy to commit it; or iii) intentionally aiding a person to commit it 11. A person is said to 'instigate; another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word 'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. In the present case none of the accused goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or "urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to refund or repay the amount advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. In the present case none of the accused goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or "urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to refund or repay the amount advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. On the other hand they wanted the loan advanced by them to the deceased to be repaid by him. For the said purpose, it was at least needed, if not essential, that Ramesh Kumar Sadholia should live." 8. In the case of Dinesh V. State of M.P. ( MPWN 103), while dealing with similar facts, it has been held as follows: 8 - If the deceased was being unduly pressurized to repay the loan and he felt harrassed then he ought to have taken recourse to law by lodging a report against the petitioner and other persons that they are threatening to kill him for non-payment of loan. The deceased instead of pursuing a legal remedy had committed suicide, obviously to put the petitioner and his other tormentors into hot waters. Be that as it may, a case for abetment to commit suicide is not at all made out against the petitioner. 9. In the case of M. Arjunan V. State, Represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315 , Hon'ble the Apex Court held as follows: 7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C. 8. In our considered view, in the case at hand, M.O.1-letter and the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5, would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the appellant- deceased. In our considered view, in the case at hand, M.O.1-letter and the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5, would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the appellant- deceased. Having advanced the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might have uttered some abusive words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. From the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are not established and the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. 10. In the instant case, allegations alleged against the petitioner are based on suicide note recovered from the pocket of deceased's shirt, which is said to be written by the deceased and also a blank cheque bearing deceased's signatures, said to be seized on the instance of the petitioner from his possession. As the cheque bearing deceased's signature is said to be seized from the possession of petitioner and evidence with regard to the seizure of the same cannot be appreciated at this stage, therefore keeping in view his name, address and profession, at this stage it cannot be said that he is different person than that of Govind Sen, named in the suicide note. 11. So far as the alleged allegations are concerned, contents of the suicide note written with respect to the petitioner are relevant, which are as follows: 12. It is apparent from the above contents that deceased in his suicide note only states about the misuse of his cheque and harassment made by the petitioner, he no where mentioned that he had taken any amount on interest as loan from the petitioner. He has also not stated about the specific acts of the petitioner as to how he harassed him. He has also not stated about the specific acts of the petitioner as to how he harassed him. In view of the legal position as discussed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgements cited above, this Court is of the view that if the deceased was being harassed for repayment of loan advanced to him by the petitioner, he was having the remedy to take recourse to law by filing complaint against the petitioner, but the deceased instead of choosing legal remedy had ended his life by committing suicide, thereby implicating the petitioner in the instant case. Hence, no case is made out against the petitioner. This Court finds force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the light of the judgments, cited above, it is a fit case for quashment of charge. 13. Consequently, this revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 23.03.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagda Distt. Ujjain in S.T. No. 05/2021 is hereby set aside and the petitioner stands discharged from the offences punishable u/S 306 of IPC and u/S 3/4 of the Act of 1937. His bail bond stands discharged. 14. Criminal revision stands disposed of. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for its compliance. Certified copy as per rules.