Order ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J. 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No.433/2018, which was registered at Police Station Anantpura, District Kota, for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC . 2. Brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of a written report submitted by respondent No.2 on 24.09.2018. Stating in this report, it was alleged that a sale agreement in respect of a house belonging to the petitioner was executed between the complainant’s mother and petitioner for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,40,000/-, out of which, an amount of Rs.8,40,000/- was given to the petitioner as advance by the complainant’s mother and the remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid to the petitioner on or before 21.09.2018, which the complainant’s mother could not pay on time. Upon non-payment of remaining amount on time, the petitioner told the complainant’s mother that neither will she get the house nor the money given in advance will be returned, due to which complainant’s mother experienced a great deal of stress and was repeatedly saying that both, the house and the money were lost. It was further alleged that on 23.09.2018, the complainant’s mother locked the door from inside and did not open it, complainant tried knocking and shouting but to no avail as her mother did not respond and at around the same time, the petitioner made a call on complainant's mother's mobile, which was answered by the complainant and she told him not to harass her mother anymore as she was under a lot of stress. Later, people broke open the door and found the complainant’s mother hanging. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the facts mentioned in the FIR are accepted at face value, it does not establish the offence of abetment to suicide. Counsel submits that the matter is essentially a civil dispute disguised as a criminal complaint, where the complainant seeks to reclaim money previously paid under an agreement to sell the house. The agreement stated that the petitioner agreed to sell his house to the deceased for Rs.12,40,000/-, out of which Rs.8,40,000/- was paid in advance. Counsel submits that the matter is essentially a civil dispute disguised as a criminal complaint, where the complainant seeks to reclaim money previously paid under an agreement to sell the house. The agreement stated that the petitioner agreed to sell his house to the deceased for Rs.12,40,000/-, out of which Rs.8,40,000/- was paid in advance. The remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid by a specific date, with the condition that the advance would be liable to forfeiture if the remaining amount was not paid on time. 4. Learned State counsel submits that appropriate order may be passed by the Court considering facts and circumstances of the present case. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2 to oppose this petition. 5. The primary allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner repeatedly urged the terms of the agreement to the deceased. Offence punishable under Section 306 IPC , abetment to suicide, occurs when a person instigates, conspires, or intentionally aids another to commit suicide. However, the mere repetition of contractual terms in a civil transaction, without evidence of instigation or coercion leading to suicide, generally would not fulfill the criteria for abetment. In plethora of judicial pronouncements, Constitutional Courts have held that to constitute the offence of abetment to suicide, there must be clear demonstration of mental cruelty or inducement amounting to abetment, which seems absent in the present case as the facts mentioned in the impugned FIR are limited to a contractual dispute and forfeiture of advance payment. If any person commits suicide on account of civil dispute for the reason of not handling the situation properly, it doesn’t amount to abetment to suicide. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Singhal Vs The State of Uttarakhand ( 2023 INSC 1035 ) reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the person has no choice but to commit suicide. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Singhal Vs The State of Uttarakhand ( 2023 INSC 1035 ) reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court held that the incident which had allegedly driven the deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks prior and even the suicide note had been written three days prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide and further, there was no allegation that any act had been done by the accused- appellant therein in close proximity to the date of suicide. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to 29 instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits. 12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306IPC was not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.” 7. In another case of Ayyub Vs State of Uttar Pradesh ( 2025 INSC 168 ) , Hon’ble Supreme Court highlighted that there should be no other alternatives left for the deceased but to commit suicide for the alleged harassment to be considered as abetment. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows-: “19. In another case of Ayyub Vs State of Uttar Pradesh ( 2025 INSC 168 ) , Hon’ble Supreme Court highlighted that there should be no other alternatives left for the deceased but to commit suicide for the alleged harassment to be considered as abetment. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows-: “19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC , specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 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. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting . Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide” 8. For a thorough evaluation of the pending dispute, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC which read as under:- “306. Abetment of suicide- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” “ 107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- (1) Instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) 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; or (3) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 9. As is clear from the plain language of the Sections that to attract the ingredient of Section 306 , the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. As is clear from the plain language of the Sections that to attract the ingredient of Section 306 , the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly- instigates any person to do that thing or 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 or Thirdly- intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 10. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahendra Awase Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2025(SC) 568 has considered the law regarding abetment to suicide and Hon’ble Supreme Court criticized the casual approach of police in registering offences under Section 306 IPC . The judgment warned against mechanically charging individuals without proper investigation into whether the alleged acts constituted abetment. Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “18. As has been held herein above, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution’s case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions emphasised herein above. Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide. Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions emphasised herein above. Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days. 20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach. appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of .” 11. In the present case, the maximum allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded the remaining money from the deceased, to which he was legally entitled under the terms of the agreement executed between the parties, and that he reminded the deceased about the terms of the agreement. In the present case, the maximum allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded the remaining money from the deceased, to which he was legally entitled under the terms of the agreement executed between the parties, and that he reminded the deceased about the terms of the agreement. It is also evident from the facts mentioned in the FIR that on the alleged date of suicide, there was no conversation between the petitioner and the deceased, as she had already locked herself inside the room when a telephonic call was made by the petitioner to the deceased and, admittedly, the said call was received by the complainant- respondent No.2. If the entire FIR is accepted at face value, the only inference that can be drawn is that there was a dispute between the parties over the remaining payment under the sale agreement. 12. This unfortunate incident brings this Court’s attention to a plethora of studies which reflect that the risk of suicide is strongly linked to an individual's mental health status and can vary significantly from person to person. It is understood that risk factors are complex and often involve a combination of biological, psychological, social and environmental influences. A majority of people who commit suicide have an underlying mental health condition which can vary from person to person and could have been undiagnosed or untreated. It is also not necessary that each and every person will behave similarly in handling problematic situations and it depends on their state of mind. In the present case, the possibility that the deceased committed suicide due to being overwhelmed by family problems and the apprehension of losing money cannot be ruled out. 13. In wake of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds that the contents mentioned in the impugned FIR do not make out that the petitioner herein had abetted the victim to commit suicide and deems it a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of it as continuance of proceedings of the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law. 14. Accordingly, the FIR No. 433/2018, registered at Police Station Anantpura, District Kota, and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of it, are hereby quashed. 15. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.