ORDER : 1. This Revision has been preferred against the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.80/2022, whereby the charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against the Applicant. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that deceased Vasant Kumar Yadav was working as a Peon under the subordination of the Applicant, who was posted as Supervisor and Incharge/Branch Manager in the District Cooperative Central Bank, Branch Pendra, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi. It is alleged that the deceased Vasant Kumar Yadav committed suicide on 26.12.2021 at 4 o’ clock in the morning leaving behind a suicide note stating therein that the Petitioner had tortured and also threatened him which made him take such an extreme step of ending his life. On such averments, FIR No.634 of 2021 was registered at PS Ratanpur, District Bilaspur. 3. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Section 306 IPC and charge was also framed for the same Section against the Applicant by way of impugned order. Hence this Revision. 4. Shri Khetrapal, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the order impugned is contrary to the well settled principles of law and no necessary ingredients under Section 306 IPC are made out against the present Applicant. He further submits that the Applicant is working as a Supervisory Officer and had only advised the deceased to attend the office without consuming alcohol as the deceased was in the regular habit of consuming alcohol for which, he made a complaint also to the Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Bank, Head Office at Bilaspur on 15.12.2021 against the deceased vide letter No.183 and the copy of the same has also been annexed in support of the Revision. He further submits that in the preliminary enquiry report of the Department, it has been clearly revealed that no harassment was made by the Applicant and the deceased himself was responsible for not discharging his official duties in a proper manner and a copy of the report is also annexed herewith. He further submits that in the preliminary enquiry report of the Department, it has been clearly revealed that no harassment was made by the Applicant and the deceased himself was responsible for not discharging his official duties in a proper manner and a copy of the report is also annexed herewith. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Geo Verghese vs. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873 and Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 628 and submits that the abetment is lacking and therefore, the Revision may be allowed discharging the Applicant from the charge under Section 306 IPC. 5. Per contra, Ms. Singh, learned Counsel for the State supported the impugned order and submits that the post-mortem report reveals that on the date of incident, the deceased had not consumed any alcohol and the suicide note also clearly reveals that due to harassment and torture meted out to the deceased by the Applicant, the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide and as such, the trial Court has properly framed the charge, which does not call for any interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Revision carefully. 7. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another (supra), it was held that if prosecution was allowed to continue on the basis of such absurd allegations, it would be difficult for every superior officer to work and there was no intention on the part of the Applicant to harass the deceased or to instigate him for committing suicide and it was observed at paras-12 & 13 as under:- “12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note. 13. We are the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note. 13. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so-called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in the present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B (2005) 2 SCC 659 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 543, this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused.” 8. In Geo Verghese vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (supra), it has been held at para-23 as under:- “23. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide…..” 9. Having considered the aforesaid principles and reverting back to the factual matrix of the present case wherein, in the statement of the witnesses, it has been generalized that the deceased had informed them that the Applicant was harassing and also threatening to implicate him in a false case. Having considered the aforesaid principles and reverting back to the factual matrix of the present case wherein, in the statement of the witnesses, it has been generalized that the deceased had informed them that the Applicant was harassing and also threatening to implicate him in a false case. It is the solemn duty of the Supervisory Officer/head of the Office to instill discipline in the Office, therefore, the role played by the Applicant in advising the deceased not to consume liquor while discharging official duty does not fall in the ambit of harassment and would not be a ground for provoking the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not made out against the Applicant as the Applicant had in any manner, either instigated or intentionally persuaded him to commit suicide, therefore, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate the deceased, the charge framed against him under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not made out against the Applicant. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the instant Revision is hereby allowed and the order framing charge against the Applicant under Section 306 IPC is set aside and he is discharged from the criminal case registered against him.