JUDGMENT : G.S. AHLUWALIA, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 281/2021 registered at Police Station Ambah District Morena for offence under Section 306 of IPC. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of present application in short are that the FIR has been lodged against the applicant on the allegations that the applicant was pressurizing the deceased to talk to him even against her wishes and was insisting that the deceased should leave her husband and should marry him and was also insisting for physical relationship. When the deceased refused to accede to the demand of the applicant, then he used to threaten her to defame in the society by disclosing her illicit relationship. It is alleged that on account of threat given by the applicant, deceased committed suicide on 31.03.2021 by hanging. 3. Challenging the FIR, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the allegations made against the applicant are false. If the applicant was harassing the deceased, then instead of putting her life to an end, the deceased could have made a complaint to the police. All witnesses are the family members of the deceased. Their statements have been recorded belatedly. In fact, one Malkhan was killed by the family members of the deceased. The applicant is related to Malkhan and since family members of the deceased were convicted for the murder of Malkhan, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. To buttress his contentions, counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ramsingh Yadav vs. State of M.P. and Another, 2018 (4) Crimes 230 (M.P.). 4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that the applicant was pressurizing the deceased to leave her husband and marry the applicant and was also insisting that she should allow physical relationship with him and when she refused to accede to his illegal demands, then he also threatened to defame her in the society by disclosing her relationship. Thus, it is clear that the applicant by the aforesaid act, had abeted the deceased to commit suicide. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Thus, it is clear that the applicant by the aforesaid act, had abeted the deceased to commit suicide. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 has held as under: “16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in Ramesh Kumar Case (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is 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. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an “instigation” may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. 17. Thus, to constitute “instigation” a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward.” The dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction” (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts” (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).” 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750 has held as under: “abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing – Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained - In order to convict a person under section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence - It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide – Also, reiterated, if it appears to Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide, conscience of Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty - Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under Section 306 made out - Hence, appellant's conviction, held unsustainable.” 8. The Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Another, (1994) 1 SCC 73 has held as under: “This Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that that accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Amlendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 has held as under: “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely 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, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 13. 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. 14. The expression “abetment” has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC. 15. In view of the aforesaid situation and position, we have examined the provision of clause Thirdly which provides that a person would be held to have abetted the doing of a thing when he intentionally does or omits to do anything in order to aid the commission of that thing. The Act further gives an idea as to who would be intentionally aiding by any act of doing of that thing when in Explanation 2 it is provided as follows: “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.” 16. Therefore, the issue that arises for our consideration is whether any of the aforesaid clauses, namely, Firstly along with Explanation 1 or more particularly, Thirdly with Explanation 2 to Section 107 is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to bring the present case within the purview of Section 306 IPC.” 10. Thus, if the allegations made against the applicant in the present case are considered, then it is clear that the applicant was insisting that the deceased should involve herself in physical relationship with him. He was also insisting that the deceased should leave her husband and marry the applicant and when she refused to accede to the illegal demand made by the applicant, then he had threatened that he would defame her in the society by exposing her illicit relationship. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased was of hyper sensitive in nature. It is true that merely having an extramarital relationship may not be sufficient to prosecute a person for offence under Section 306 of IPC, but when mental or physical cruelty is meted out to the deceased for having an extramarital relation, then it would certainly amount to abetment of suicide. Furthermore, for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC, an accused has to prove that the un-controverted allegations do not make out an offence. Furthermore, for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC, an accused has to prove that the un-controverted allegations do not make out an offence. There are prima facie evidence that the applicant had played an active role in instigating or adding commission of suicide by the deceased by pressuring her to have physical relationship with him as well as to leave her husband and to marry him by threatening that otherwise he would defame her in the society by exposing her illicit relationship. 11. So far as the delayed statements of the witnesses is concerned, it is well established principle of law that mere delay in recording the statement under Section 161 of CrPC is not sufficient to discard the evidence of witnesses outrightly. Thus, the prosecution would get an opportunity to explain the delay in recording statement and if it is found that the prosecution has explained delay, then the evidence of the witnesses cannot be discarded. 12. So far as the submission that the witnesses are related to the deceased are concerned, it is well established principle of law that the testimony of a witness cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that he is a related witness. Unless and until the witness is an interested witness, his testimony cannot be discarded. 13. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting quashment of the proceedings. 14. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.