ORDER : The present revision petition is filed under Section 401/397 of Cr.P.C. whereby a charge under Section 306 of IPC has been framed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in ST No.36/2014 by order dated 01.02.2014. 2. Prosecution case is that police has registered case under Section 306 of IPC on the fact that on date of incident, applicants demanded money lent by them due to which deceased committed suicide. After investigation police filed charge-sheet before the learned trial Court and the trial Court framed the charges under Section 306 of IPC. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the demand of refund of loan amount does not amount to abettment under Section 107 of IPC and, therefore, charge under Section 306 of IPC ought to have not been framed by the trial Court. 4 . Counsel for the State submits that the prosecution case based on suicide note and apart from demanding the loan amount the applicants have also kept his vehicle in their possession and did not pay the rent to him and, therefore, the deceased had no option, but to commit suicide. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs.State of (Govt of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (16) SCC 605 , Shabbir Hussain Vs. State of MP in SLP (Cri) No.7284/2017, Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 , Rajesh Vs. State of MP in CRR No.3155/2011 decided on 09.07.2019, held that there is no evidence regarding instigation which is one of the most important ingredient under section 107 of the IPC to constitute the offence under section 306 of IPC and set aside the charge under section 306 of the IPC. 6. Section 107 of the IPC makes it obligatory for the prosecution to show and establish the elements of instigation. The Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar V/s. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 1998 has opined as under:- 8. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased to go and die, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of instigation the word instigate denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant o f instigation. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased to go and die, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of instigation the word instigate denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant o f instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea it is in a fit of anger and emotion. 7. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay (supra) the accused allegedly told the deceased "to go and die" yet Apex Court opined that it does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". In the instant case, if story of the prosecution is read and believed as such, it would be clear that the appellants did not in any manner instigate the deceased to commit suicide. There is no element of "incitement" or "instigation" on their behalf. Thus, Section 306 of the IPC is not attracted against the appellants. 8. The ancillary question is whether their acts fall within the ambit of Section 306 of the IPC. In Gangula Mohan Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750 , the Apex Court opined as under :- 17. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 9. The principle flowing from this judgment is that the overt act of accused person must be of such a nature where the victim had no option but to commit suicide. Even assuming that the appellants mounted pressure upon the deceased to repay the Bank defalcated amount, this does not fall within the ambit of "incitement" or "instigation". 10. 9. The principle flowing from this judgment is that the overt act of accused person must be of such a nature where the victim had no option but to commit suicide. Even assuming that the appellants mounted pressure upon the deceased to repay the Bank defalcated amount, this does not fall within the ambit of "incitement" or "instigation". 10. This Court in Hukum Singh Yadav V/s. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2011) MP 1089 considered the judgment of Supreme Court in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) and held as under :- 10. Considering these legal aspect this is to be observed that whether applicants have had same knowledge that deceased would commit suicide. As per the prosecution case when deceased was going with his father. Applicants restrained deceased and his father Jagdish and abused and threatened both of them, hence it cannot be assumed that applicants had knowledge that one of them particularly deceased will commit suicide. When act of abusing and threatening was alleged to be done with deceased as well as his father, so it cannot be said that applicants had knowledge or intention that deceased should commit suicide. There is no evidence that they provoked, incited or encouraged deceased to commit suicide. It is also not alleged that when applicants threatened to kill the deceased and his father Jagdish they were armed with some weapons. So it cannot be presumed that deceased was so frightened that he had no option left except committing suicide and was compelled to do so. 11. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 23/2/2018 in Criminal Revision No. 208/2018 in the case of Hemchand Yashwant Fasatey Vs. State of M.P., after referring to various judgments of the Apex Court held that demand of loan amount or asking to repay the money would not amount to abetment. 12. In the light of aforesaid enunciation of law, facts of the present case are examined. In the suicide note, the deceased has stated that he had taken loan from the applicants and they were demanding loan amount with interest when he could not pay them, had taken his vehicle, but did not pay rent for the same. Thus prima-facie ingredients of Section 107 of IPC regarding abetment or instigation are lacking. 13. The present application is allowed. The impugned order of framing of charge is set aside. Thus prima-facie ingredients of Section 107 of IPC regarding abetment or instigation are lacking. 13. The present application is allowed. The impugned order of framing of charge is set aside. The applicants are acquitted of the charges.