1 - Shashank Jain @ Raja And Anr. S/o Rakesh Jain Aged About 31 v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Through- Police Station Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 228 of 2025 1 - Shashank Jain @ Raja And Anr. S/o Rakesh Jain Aged About 31 Years R/o Vikas Provision Store, Bti Road, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund ( C.G. ). 2 - Rakesh Jain S/o Late Nathuram Jain Aged About 59 Years R/o Vikas Provision Store, Bti Road, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund ( C.G. ). ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Through- Police Station Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund ( C.G. ). 2 - Heeramoti Chouhan W/o L. Purushottam Singh Chauhan Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No.14 Beldrapara Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund ( C.G. ). (Cause title taken from Case Information System) .. Respondents For Petitioners For State For Respondent No.2 : : : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate and Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Deputy Advocate General Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.09 11:02:43 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 07/05/2025 1. The present criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS, 2023”) has been filed by the petitioners Shashank Jain @ Raja and Rakesh Jain, against the order dated 17-12-2024, passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Sessions Case No. 77/2024, whereby the charge under Sections 306 read with Section 34 and 201 of IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, have been framed against the petitioners. The order dated 07-01-2025 (Annexure A-4) passed by the learned trial court is also under challenge in the present petition, whereby the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20-01-2023, the complainant, Heeramoti @ Karuna, gave a merg intimation that her husband, Purushottam @ Rajesh Chauhan, has committed suicide in his house by hanging himself in the ceiling fan of his room. He was being taken to Aditya Hospital, but he was declared dead and his dead body is kept in the mortuary of the District Hospital. Her husband has committed suicide due to harassment by the moneylenders. The dead body was sent for its post-mortem, and it was found that the death of the deceased was asphyxia due to hanging. During the merg inquiry, a suicidal note was seized from the wife of the deceased on 04-02-2023. The mobile phone of the deceased, two 3 cheque books have also been seized from the wife of the deceased on 11-05-2023. FIR was registered on 18-05-2023 against an unknown person for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. The suicidal note and specimen writing of the deceased were sent to the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, PHQ, Raipur, (C.G.), and the report has been obtained in which the suicidal note is found to be written by the deceased. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, the accused persons have been arrested and after conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against total 07 accused persons including the petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, for the offence under Sections 306, 34, 201 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. The case was committed to the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, from where the same is transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. The learned trial Court has framed the charge against the petitioners on 17-12-2024, for the offences under Section 306/34, 201 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, which is under challenge in the present petition. 3. After framing the charge on 17-12-2024, later on, the petitioners have filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for their discharge from the offences. The parties were heard on the said application of the petitioners, and the same is decided by the learned
Facts
trial court on 07-01-2025, by which the application is rejected. The 4 order dated 07-01-2025 is also under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no sufficient evidence against the petitioners to frame charges against them and proceed with the trial. The petitioners have not been named in the suicidal note allegedly seized from the wife of the deceased. The FIR has been registered against the unknown persons. There is no proximate or immediate threat just before his suicide alleged by the petitioners. Even after considering the entire material produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet, no offence of Section 306 of IPC or Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, are prima facie made out to frame charge against the petitioners and to proceed with the trial of the case. he would further submit that in the suicidal note, it is alleged that the deceased took loan from the accused persons and despite is repayment along with the higher interest, they are creating pressure for more amount and threatened him, but there is no name of any accused persons as who demanded money from him, when it was demanded or where it was demanded. Bald allegations have been raised in the said suicidal note. There is no allegation of any abetment or instigation against the petitioners. There is no proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of the petitioners with that of the suicide committed by the deceased. There is no instigation from the petitioners to the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such gravity that it is intended to drag the 5 deceased to such a position, under which she has no option but to commit suicide. Such instigation may also be within close proximity to the act of suicide. The ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC are completely missing in the present case. He would also submit that there is no whisper of evidence that the petitioners instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is no active participation in any act of harassment so as to drag him to commit suicide. Therefore, the impugned order of framing the charge against the petitioners is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been mechanically rejected by the learned trial court without proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. In support of their submissions, they would rely upon the judgment reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 107 (Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh), 2025 SCC Online SC 259 (Ayyub & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another), CrR No. 48/2018 (Ashok Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh), order dated 02-01-2025 passed by Co-ordinate bench of this court and Cr.R. No. 1168/2023 (Nitesh Singhania v. State of Chhattisgarh), order dated 22-01-2024 passed by Co-ordinate bench of this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the prima facie material is to be considered, as to whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial or not. The trial court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence on record, but to 6 consider the prima facie material to proceed with the trial. From the statements of the witnesses, there is sufficient material available on record to frame the charge against the petitioners. From the suicidal note and from the statement of the wife of the deceased, namely Heeramoti @ Karuna, the other witnesses, Smt. Badan Chauhan (mother of the deceased), Vinod Chauhan (brother-in-law of the deceased), Rohit, Shivkumar, Pushpa Sagar Tandi and others, the prima facie evidence of harassment and pressure upon the deceased is there and sufficient material with respect to involvement of the petitioners in the offence in question is available on record, which is sufficient to frame charge against them. It is also submitted by him that the application of the petitioners filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has rightly been rejected by the learned trial court as the same has been filed after framing of charge, and once the charge has been framed, the application under Section 227 cannot be considered. Therefore, the petition does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2/complainant by adopting the submissions made by the state counsel, would vehemently oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He would also submit that from the suicidal note as well as the statement of the wife of the deceased, the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC are satisfied. There is sufficient material available in the charge sheet as to the harassment of the deceased for the demand of higher and excessive interest, and 7 threatening him. The entire family of the deceased was in fear, and in such pressure, the deceased committed suicide. The persistent demand for higher and excessive interest, with the threat itself, speaks about the abetment and instigation to commit suicide. From the suicidal note and from the statements of the witnesses, there is sufficient material in the charge sheet to frame the charge against the petitioners. The suicidal note is found to be written by the deceased, which is supported by the report of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents. It is not the stage to evaluate the evidence available on record, but to prima facie consider the evidence to frame the charge and to proceed with the trial of the case. He would also submit that the application of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is to be filed before framing of the charge. The order sheet dated 17-12-2024 itself speaks that the application is filed after the passing of the order framing charge. When the court has already considered the material available in the charge sheet and passed the order framing the charge, there is no scope for its reconsideration. Therefore, the petition does not have any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents as well as the copy of the suicidal note left by the deceased, annexed with the petition. Before considering the facts of the case, it is necessary to quote here the relevant provisions of the law in the present case i.e. Section 107 of the IPC, which defines “abetment” and Section 306 of the IPC, 8 which provides punishment for “abetment of suicide”. Section 107 of IPC 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; 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. 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. Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 9. Section 306 of IPC is also extracted below for ready reference : “306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description 9 for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 10. A bare reading of the provisions of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC would reveal that for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, twin conditions are required to be fulfilled, namely, suicide and abetment to commit suicide. Commission of suicide is not made punishable because the commission of suicide is not culpable, but for the reason that the person who is culpably responsible would have departed from this world before he can face any indictment, whereas abatement of the commission of suicide is viewed very seriously by law. 11. In the light of the aforementioned legal proposition, I have examined the facts of the present case to find out whether the allegations made in the case against the petitioner, prima facie, constitute the alleged offence or the allegations are so improbable that a prudent man would not arise at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint. In the present case, on 20-01-2023, merg was intimated by the wife of the deceased about commission of suicide due to harassment for the reason of the borrowed amount. At that time, she had not alleged the names of the petitioners. On 04- 02-2023, the wife of the deceased produced a suicidal note to the police along with the documents of the specimen writing of the deceased. In the said suicidal note, there is no name of any accused persons, and it is alleged in the suicidal note that the moneylenders harass him and he is unable to fulfill their demands, the 10 moneylenders are harassing his entire family, and his neighbour has taken possession of his house, his wife is having knowledge of the entire transaction and the names of the accused persons. The FIR was registered on 18-05-2023, against unknown persons. From the statement of Heeramoti @ Karuna, wife of the deceased, it appears that the deceased was indebted to a huge amount borrowed from various persons. On 19-01-2023, her husband instructed her to give the amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the bank employee. She disclosed in her statement about various loans obtained by her husband from various persons and transactions of cheques. It is alleged that despite repayment of the amount of the loan, the persons from whom her husband had taken the loan are pressuring him for payment of extra interest and harassing him continuously, for which her husband has committed suicide. No specific instance of any demand or harassment by the present petitioners has been levelled by the wife of the deceased. From the statement of Smt. Badan Chauhan, Vinod Chauhan, Rohit Kumar Chauhan, Shiv Kumar Rajput, Pushpa Sagar Tandi, Ghanshyam Gwal, and other witnesses, it also reflects that the deceased was indebted to various persons and could not repay his debt. There is no material in the charge sheet against the petitioners that they have harassed the deceased in the close proximity of his death or any harassment given by them to the deceased. Even, they have not been named in the suicidal note. 11 12. In the matter of “Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujrat and Ors.”, 2010 (8) SCC 628, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 12 that:- “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 out the suicide of the concerned person 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 of 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. In case of “M. Mohan v. State represented by the Superintendent of Police”, 2011 (3) SCC 626, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “45. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are 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/she committed suicide. ” 12 14. In the matter of “Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4091, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that:- “15. In the decision of this Court in case of Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 659, an employee of a company was transferred from one place to another. However, he failed to join. Thereafter, he sent a letter of resignation expressing his grievance against stagnancy to salary and unpleasant situation. The company accepted the resignation. Thereafter, the said employee committed suicide. He left behind a suicide note, alleging therein that Netai Dutta and, one Paramesh Chatterjee engaged him in several wrong doings. The same was alleged as, torture. The brother of the deceased filed complaint, against Netai Dutta and others under Section 306 of the IPC. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta declined to quash the complaint. In appeal, however, this Court while quashing the complaint, at paragraphs 5 and 6 observed as under: “5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note that the present appellant had caused any harm to him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working conditions at the work place. But, it may also be noticed that the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never joined the office at 13 160 B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two years and that the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot be said that the present appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section 306. IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of the “abetment” have been stated in Section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing : or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission taken place in pursuance of that conspiracy, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The explanation to. Section 107 says that any willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of a material-fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of “abetment” (Emphasis supplied) 6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any-act or incidence where by the appellant herein is alleged to have, committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased) Pranab Kumar Nag 14 to committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.” 16. This Court, thereafter at para 7, inter alia, observed that— “7. ….The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned single Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein.” 17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as under:— “14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. . . . . 15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 15 618, has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under:“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.” 16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was observed as under:— “25. 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 the Supreme 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”” 18. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC in detail, observed as under:— “7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) 16 the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 19. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under:— “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of 17 harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such 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 occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to 18 commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. The Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2022 decided on 12th October, 2022, after referring to the above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306 of the IPC observed as under:— “44. …It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of 19 occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.” 15. Recently, in the matter of “Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh”, 2025 SCC Online SC 107, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that 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. In Para 5, 19 and 20, it has been held that:- “5. It further transpires that the forensic laboratory had confirmed certain e audio recording of the conversation between the deceased and the appellant. Transcripts of the conversation were also produced. 19. As has been held hereinabove, 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. 20. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no 20 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.” 16. Further, in the matter of “Ayyub and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another”, 2025 SCC Online SC 259, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “19. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P.3, the appellant remarked to the deceased that "go and die" and the deceased thereafter committed suicide. This Court held that: (SCC p. 439, para 3) "3 Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events." 20. 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 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. It has been further held that the intention of the 21 accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC (see Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat. 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 (see Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.5 and M. Mohan v. State and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh).” 17. From the above settled legal proposition, it is quite clear that to bring the case within the ambit of “abetment” under Section 107 of the IPC, there has to be material/evidence with regard to instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the petitioners/accused persons. For the purpose of framing of charge under Section 306 of the IPC, there has to be material with regard to the positive act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led to the person committing suicide, framing of charge under Section 306 of the IPC is not sustainable. 18. In the present case, the contents of the FIR as well as the suicidal note left by the deceased indicate that the deceased committed suicide, fed up with the act of the moneylenders of not repaying the loan amount and interest given by them. Whether the allegation made in the FIR and the suicidal note is sufficient for the offence of 22 Section 107 and 306 of the IPC? The answer is in negative for the reason that in the suicidal note, there is no allegation to the effect that the present petitioners had instigated the deceased to do the particular thing or they intentionally abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Further, there is no name of the present petitioners who have also given the loan to the deceased or pressurised him for its repayment. There is no allegation of conspiracy in the FIR or suicidal note, nor does it indicate that there was continuous harassment or torture by the present petitioners or that they intended the deceased to commit suicide or instigated him to commit suicide. The facts mentioned in the suicide note are not sufficient to draw a presumption that the present petitioners abetted the suicide. Further, the statement of the wife of the deceased, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not disclose any act or omission of the present petitioners that would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide. The act of non-repayment of the borrowed amount, individually or collectively, does not fall within the purview of abetment. Even presuming that the deceased was upset on account of non-repayment of the borrowed amount and interest, it does not amount to instigation or abetment to commit suicide as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. Instead of taking his legal and legitimate action, the deceased adopted an escapist course of committing suicide. It is settled law that if the instigation for the commission of suicide is prima facie not established by the prosecution, the charge under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be framed. 23 19. In the case of “Mahendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari and Another”, 2022 SCC Online SC 1057, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised if the allegations are patently so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent man can ever reach such conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied, then the court may interfere. In para 27, it has been held that:- “27. The Court in para 27 has recorded its conclusion and laid down the principles to be considered for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 particularly in the context of quashing of charge framed under Section 228 CrPC. Paras 27, 27.1 to 27.3, 27.9 and 27.13, respectively, are extracted as follows: (Amit Kapoor case 15, SCC pp. 482-83) "27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of 24 jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to 25 determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie." 20. Further, the coordinate bench of this court has held in the case of Nitesh Singhania v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another”, Cr.R. No. 1168 of 2023, order dated 22-01-2024, that the non-repayment of the borrowed amount and interest, does not amounts to instigation as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Rajesh v. State of Haryana” 2019 Criminal Law Journal 2432, held that the conviction under Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the 26 purview of Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. There has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence, and there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option. 22. In the matter of “S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr”, reported in 2010 (12) SCC 190, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that :- “23. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that; 17. ……. the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a 27 finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. 24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 25. 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 28 23. The Hon’ble supreme Court in the matter of “Mohit Singhal and Anr. Vs. State of Uttrakhand and Anr”, reported in 2024 (1) SCC 417, held that :- “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 instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.” 24. In the present case, there is no proximate link between the death of the deceased and any act of the petitioners. In the suicidal note, an omnibus allegation has been levelled that he was fed up with the demands made by the moneylenders. The deceased was indebted to various persons and was not in a position to repay them. The pressure is quite obvious, but it does not mean that the petitioners have abetted him or instigated him to commit suicide. The allegations 29 against the present petitioners are not sufficient to frame charge for the offence of Section 306 of the IPC against them. 25. So far as the charge of Section 201 of the IPC is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioners have not provided complete information with respect to loan transaction between them and the deceased, and thereby, they are liable to be punished for the offence of Section 201 of the IPC. Section 201 of the IPC provides for punishment for causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender. From perusal of the documents annexed with the charge sheet, it reflects that the notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued to the petitioner No. 1 Shashank Jain @ Raja on 24-07-2024 and to petitioner No. 2 Rakesh Jain, on 30-08-2024, and they replied all the notices and disclosed the information that they had in their knowledge or possession. It further reflects that there is lack of sufficient material to frame the charge for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. 26. Likewise, for the offence of Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, provides that whoever molests, or abets the molestation of, any debtor for the recovery of a debt owed by him to his creditor shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. As has been discussed above, there is no instance alleged with respect to molestation by the petitioners to the deceased for recovery of any debt, except for general and omnibus allegations. Therefore, no sufficient material 30 against the petitioners to frame charge for the offence of Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. 27. Considering and examining the entire material available on record as absolutely correct and true on their face value, no prima facie case for framing of charge for the offence under Sections 306/34 and 201 of IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, are made out against the petitioners Shashank Jain @ Raja and Rakesh Jain as there is no nexus and proximity with the conduct and behaviour of the petitioners with that of the suicide committed by the deceased Purushottam @ Rajesh Chauhan. The order framing charge against the present petitioners is erroneous and unsustainable. It would be a travesty of justice to compel the petitioners to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. 28. From perusal of the order sheet dated 17-12-2024 (Annexure A-1), it transpires that the learned trial court has passed the order and framed charges against the petitioners on 17-12-2024. Later on, on the same day, the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners. At the time when the application is filed, the charges have already been framed, and the order has been passed. The said application is filed after the framing of the charge, which has been passed by the learned trial court by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. Since, the charges have already been framed by the learned trial court, the application filed by the petitioners has rightly been rejected vide order dated 07-01-2025. 31 This court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order dated 07-01-2025; however, the framing of the charge is the subject matter of this petition, which includes the grounds raised in the application, and this court considered the insufficiency of the material available in the charge sheet against the petitioners for framing of the charge. 29. Consequently, the present Criminal Revision is allowed. The charge for the offence under Section 306/34 and 201 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, against the petitioners Shashank Jain @ Raja and Rakesh Jain is hereby quashed, and they are discharged from the alleged offence. C.C. as per rules. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge