1. Heard the parties.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.2.2009, passed in Barbigha P.S. Case No. 7 of 2008 arising out of a complaint case filed under Sections 109, 120B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and order dated 23.11.2009, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-Ill, Sheikhpura.

3. An occurrence took place on 18.10.2007 in which the petitioner no. 1 was the informant. The deceased is the son of the informant. The allegation is that at about 6:30 p.m. when the informant was in the house, the named accused persons four in number began to abuse him and it is specifically alleged that Satish Singh fired with a pistol which hit his son Narayan Kumar on the head. The wife of the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner and others rushed the boy to the P.M.C.H. where he finally died on 28.10.2007 at about 7 p.m. The First Information Report was instituted on 20.11.2007. Charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance has been taken in this case. On 1.12.2007 the complaint was filed by one Ram Gulam who claimed at paragraph 4 of the complaint petition that Narayan Kumar (deceased) had taken a taxi from him on hire for two days and this complainant had gone to the house to take the advance. It is said that when he reached the house of Narayan Kumar he saw that petitioner no. 1 and his wife, petitioner no. 1 of Cr. Misc. No. 46169 of 2009 were abusing Narayan Kumar and the other accused persons i.e. Mantu, Manish and Shambhu Sharan who were allegedly present with Ram Gulam claim to have heard the abuses. It is said that Narayan Kumar was asking them to pay the taxi fare to get his wife home, whereas petitioner no. 1 Dhirendra Singh asked his son to get her home by train or bus. It is alleged that Narayan Kumar insisted that he wanted to bring his wife by a hired car, whereupon his father pushed him out of the house into the courtyard and told him that when he starts earning money then he can bring his wife in a reserved car, upon which it is said that Narayan Kumar went into his room took out a pistol and fired on his own head. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the complaint case was instituted.

4. The matter was sent for investigation to the police and Barbigha P.S. Case No. 7 of 2008 was instituted on 16.1.2008. On investigation final form was submitted finding that the petitioners in these two applications were not responsible for the occurrence and the case made out in the complaint is completely false. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has referred to the case diary. It has been submitted that the complainant/informant supported his statement in the case diary. The witnesses recorded at paragraphs 13, 19, 20 and 21 are not the witnesses named in the complaint petition, however, the Chief Judicial Magistrate still differed with the findings of the Investigating Officer and took cognizance under Sections 109, 120B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that even if the entire case and the statements made in the First information Report are accepted to be the correct version of the occurrence, no offence is made out under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: 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.

7. Therefore, the main element for the purposes of proving that a person is responsible for instigating a man to commit suicide is that the ingredients of abetment have to be made out on the basis of the records. Section 107 of the Indian Penal. Code defines abetment and reads as follows: 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