ORDER 1. This criminal revision having been heard and reserved for order, coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar pronounced the following: This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C is filed assailing the order dated 15.4.2024 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in S.T. No. 75/2023 whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable u/S 306 of IPC. 2. The exposition of facts giving rise to present revision petition is as under: As per the case of prosecution, Bhagwan Das Kotwani reported to P.S. Kotwali , Mandsaur on 4.4.2023 that on 29.3.2023 around 1:30 p.m., his daughter Vaishali went to terrace of the house. After sometime, they heard a loud noise. Vaishali was found lying on the ground unconscious. She had sustained head injury. She was taken to Siddhi Vinayak Hosptial where doctor declared her dead. On 1.4.2023, his younger daughter opened the mobile phone of Vaishali. There was a message reflecting the reason for her death. It was stated in the message that Ajay had taken all the gold from her and lost entire money in betting. Ajay had taken some cash amount also on loan, which he is not returning. Ajay is harassing her. Therefore, she is committing suicide. Ajay and his father Hemant Rochwani had harassed Vaishali, therefore, she has committed suicide by jumping from the terrace. On such allegations, P.S. Mandsaur registered FIR at Crime No. 184/2023 for offence punishable u/S 306 and 34 of IPC against Ajay Rochwani and Hemant Rochwani. Ajay was arrested on 7.4.2024. Hemant was arrested on 14.3.2024. The mobile phone containing the message was seized. The mobile phone of Ajay was also seized. Relevant recoveries and seizures were made. On completion of investigation, final report was submitted. The matter was committed for trial to the Sessions Court. Learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur framed the charge for offence punishable u/S 306 of IPC against Hemant and Ajay Rochwani vide order dated 15.4.2024. 3. The petition is filed assailing the order dated 15.4.2024 is assailed in present petition on the following grounds:- (i) There is no material available on record which implicates the petitioner/accused – Hemant in the alleged offence. (ii) Initially, there was no allegation immediately after death of Vaishali. 3. The petition is filed assailing the order dated 15.4.2024 is assailed in present petition on the following grounds:- (i) There is no material available on record which implicates the petitioner/accused – Hemant in the alleged offence. (ii) Initially, there was no allegation immediately after death of Vaishali. Later, on the basis of messages contained in the mobile phone of deceased, it was alleged that deceased has given cash and gold ornaments to accused – Ajay, who was not returning the same therefore, Vaishali had committed suicide by jumping off from the terrace of the house. (iii) There is no evidence that the petitioner was in contact with the deceased or he has received any cash or ornaments from the deceased. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. There is no evidence that petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The alleged offence is not made out. On these grounds, it is requested that the impugned order of framing of charge dated 15.4.2024 and the charge against the petitioner in S.T. No. 75/2023 be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this matter merely for the reason that he is father of the main accused – Ajay. There is no evidence, at all, to implicate the petitioner for abetment of suicide by Vaishali. The mobile communication or the chat message recovered during investigation does not reflect communication between the deceased and the petitioner – Hemant. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the criminal revision and submits that the material on record, prima-facie shows involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence alongwith the main accused Ajay. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case-diary and record. 7. Section 306 of IPC provides that punishment for abetment to commit suicide. Section 107 of IPC defines abetment as under:- 107. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case-diary and record. 7. Section 306 of IPC provides that punishment for abetment to commit suicide. Section 107 of IPC defines abetment as under:- 107. Abetment of a thing.— A person abets the doing of a thing, who— (First)— 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. The explanation to section 107 IPC which defines instigation provides, thus:- Explanation 1.— A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. 8. In case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. 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. This Court in Hukum Singh Yadav v. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2011) MP 1089 considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 199 8 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. 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. 10. In case of Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 INSC 767 , the apex Court opined as under :- ''22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the Courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a fullfledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the Courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.? 11. Similarly, In case of Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 INSC 76 , the Apex Court opined as under :- 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. Section 306 IPC 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 section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. 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 section 306 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 section 306. 12. The principle flowing from these judgments is that the overt act of accused must be of such a nature that the victim had no option but to commit suicide. Mere allegation of harassment or causing distress to the deceased would not suffice to bring the conduct within the ambit of incitement or instigation, unless there is such an action on the part of the accused, which compels the person to commit suicide and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of alleged incident. Instigation means ?to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do act?. There is no positive or direct allegation that the petitioner intended death of Vaishali or he had goaded, urged, provoked, incited or encouraged Vaishali to commit suicide. 13. The whatsapp message allegedly recovered from phone of deceased states that : '' Mai Viashali Hotwani suicide karne jaa rahi hu maine Ajay ko mere ghr ke sara gold nikal ke diya hai usne sate mei ghar ke sare paise kahatm kiye hai Mustafa sir ke 1 lakh bhi usi hi ko diya hai mei bhout pareshan hu woh mujhe de nai raha hai aur mujhe majbooran yeh kadam uthana pad rha hai mei chati hu ki mere jane ke baad use bhout kadi saza di jaye meri galti ki saza mei apne apko de rhi hu.? 14. Thus, there is no allegation that the petitioner – Hemant was also involved in transaction between the deceased – Vaishali and accused – Ajay. There is no evidence of communication between Vaishali and the petitioner – Hemant. The family members of deceased have belatedly leveled general, omnibus and bald allegations that Vaishali was distressed due to conduct of Ajay and his father – Hemant in not returning the cash and gold jewellery. 15. There is no evidence of communication between Vaishali and the petitioner – Hemant. The family members of deceased have belatedly leveled general, omnibus and bald allegations that Vaishali was distressed due to conduct of Ajay and his father – Hemant in not returning the cash and gold jewellery. 15. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offence punishable under section 306 IPC was not prima facie made out against the petitioner/accused – Hemant Rochwani. The learned trial Court committed patent error in framing charge against the petitioner for offence punishable u/S 306 of IPC. Thus, interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is needed to ensure propriety of proceedings and to prevent abuse of process of Court. (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2002 SC 199 ; Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 964 also relied). 16. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.4.2024 passed in Sessions trial No.75/2024 by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, District Mandsaur (M.P.) and the charge for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC is hereby quashed with regard to petitioner – Hemant Rochwani only. The petitioner stands discharged. 17. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.C. as per rules.