JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Gamharia P.S. Case No.20 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and other consequential reliefs. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner being the employee of a Finance Company; from which the deceased took a loan and was scrupulously paying the installments of the loan amount, barring the exceptions which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased, by threatening her continuously, by abusing her in filthy and obscene language and telling her to pay the money even by dying and also criminally intimidated the deceased, by telling her that, the petitioner will come to her house and will assault her and by thus being abetted by the petitioner, the deceased lady namely Mamta Devi committed suicide. On the basis of the written report submitted by the husband of the deceased, police registered the case and the investigation of the case is going on. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was a chronic defaulter of the loan amount. The petitioner was performing his official duty by demanding the deceased to make payment of the outstanding E.M.I. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 and submits that without a positive act on the part of accused to instigate or aid in commission of suicide, the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that before holding an accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 which had left the victim with no other alternative but to commit suicide. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 107 wherein in paragraph- 18 it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that to satisfy the requirement of instigation, the test is whether the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct has created such circumstances, that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. 8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case there is no positive proximate act attributed to the petitioner and submits that mere demand of outstanding loan amount cannot amount to abetment. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent- State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 vehemently oppose the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.). Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the contention of the petitioner that the deceased defaulted in payment of installment dues of the loan amount is out and out false. It is next submitted that during the investigation, it has been found that the deceased was scrupulously paying the installment dues of the loan, taken by her till the on set of COVID-19 Pandemic and the deceased defaulted for the first time during COVID-19 Pandemic only and keeping in view the extra ordinary situation and the orders passed by the several courts, the first time defaulter during the COVID-19 Pandemic cannot be said to be a willful defaulter. It is next submitted that it is not only a case of demand of installment of the loan amount on the part of the petitioner, as sought to be projected by the petitioner, rather there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of at least sixteen (16) times abusing the deceased daily in filthy and obscene language and even exhorting her to die if she fails to pay the loan installments and on the date of occurrence itself, there is ample material in the record to show that at least on three (3) occasions, the petitioner abused the informant lady in filthy language, threatened her to come to her house and assaulted her and exhorted her to pay the installment dues even by dying. It is then submitted that, the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as in this case there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased by the petitioner at least three (3) times on the same day before the deceased committed suicide; the same is nothing but proximate acts on the part of the petitioner which led to commission of suicide of the deceased. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which 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; 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; Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.” Has laid down that abetment of a thing firstly by instigating any person to do that thing and thirdly by instigating or aiding any act for doing that thing. 11. Now, coming to the facts of the case and keeping in view the settled principle of law that the test to be adopted to ascertain as to whether there was an abetment of commission of suicide or not is that it is to be seen as to whether the petitioner by his act of a continuous course of conduct has created such a circumstance that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. 12. As already indicated above, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of exhorting the deceased to die if she fails to pay the installment dues. It is certainly not a simple case of demanding the loan dues. The petitioner was certainly not authorised to abuse the deceased with filthy and obscene language. Nor he was authorised to exhort the deceased to die. As already indicated above, there is direct allegation against the petitioner of abusing the deceased lady in filthy and obscene language and even behaving indecently with the deceased and also on the date of occurrence, threatened to come to the house of the deceased, to beat her. There is allegation that not on a single incident but the petitioner indulged in such type of acts repeatedly and continuously at least for sixteen (16) times out of which three (3) times such act was committed by the petitioner on the date of occurrence itself. Thus, act of the accused of cruelty and continuous harassment as also, exhorting her to die; only because the deceased was not able to pay the installment dues and ultimately threatening to come to her house and to cause physical harm to her; in the considered opinion of this Court is sufficient, in ordinary course, to take the deceased to such a situation, where she would be left with no alternative than to put an end to her life. 13. 13. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that at this nascent stage when the investigation of the case is still going on; this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings be quashed and set aside. 14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, is dismissed.