JUDGMENT :

R.N. LADDHA, J.

1. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused in First Information Report No. 49 of 2022, registered at Chinchani Wangi Police Station, Sangli, for offences punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The present writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet filed against the petitioners accused in respect of the aforesaid FIR.

3. The first informant, who is the son of deceased Dattatraya, alleged in the FIR that since 2017, he has been facing threats from the accused Suryakant and his brother Sambhaji, as on his complaint, a criminal prosecution was launched against them under the provisions of The Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. Since then, there has been an outgoing feud between his family and the family of the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners are residing near the house of the first informant (respondent No. 2 herein) and they frequently threatened to vacate the house where the first informant, along with his family members, is residing. It is alleged that the petitioners used to damage the water pipes, block drains, damage utensils, dump waste in the yard of the first informant, and even throw animal bones in front of the Informant’s house, which caused distress to him and his family. It is alleged that the petitioners made life difficult for the first informant’s family and caused trouble for a long. It is stated that the deceased informed the first informant that on 03-04-2022, accused Pramila threatened him of lodging a false complaint of outraging her modesty. It is stated that on 05-04-2022, frustrated by the petitioners’ harassment, the deceased committed suicide.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, crime vide CR No. 49 of 2022 was registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused petitioners.

5. Mr. Nilesh Wable, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the FIR, charge sheet and the material on record did not support the charge of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. He claimed that the essential element of abetment, as defined in Section 107 IPC, was missing and that the petitioners could not be held liable for instigating the deceased to commit suicide. According to learned Counsel, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioners intentionally aided, instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Mr. Wable further submitted that the allegations in the FIR were absurd and improbable and did not make a case against the petitioners. According to him, there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioners’ actions were intended to drive Dattatraya to harm himself or commit suicide.

6. It is submitted that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging FIR, which renders it wholly unreliable and that the prosecution initiated against the petitioners is an attempt to harass the petitioners and only to settle the personal scores with them.

7. In support of his contentions, he relied on Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, Rajendrakumar S/o Bajranglal Sharma and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2017 All MR (Cri.) 1869, Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433, Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2018) 7 SCC 781, Suresh Hindurao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (6) Mh. L.J. (Cri.) 777 and Lata W/o Pramod Dangre vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2022 All MR (Cri.) 3892.

8. On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Yagnik the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the veracity of the allegations against the petitioners would be considered only after a full-fledged trial and no interference is warranted at this stage.

9. Ms