To sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of intentional abetment or instigation is required, with actions having a proximate link to the suicide.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 /401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 107/2020 whereby, the learned Judge ordered to frame charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 306 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a written report was filed before the Police station, Kotwali Barmer stating therein that his cousin brother was a contractor working in a firm called MR Shiv Construction Company. It was alleged that petitioner Sagata Ram and Mana Ram were jointly working in the firm as partners. It was alleged that petitioner Sagata Ram was indulged in illegal activities and wanted to oust Mana Ram from the partnership firm. Therefore, he engaged new partner Hanuman Ram Beniwal and started mounting pressure upon Mana Ram bringing the partnership firm to the verge of insolvency. It was alleged that petitioner continuously harassed Mana Ram due to which he committed suicide.

3. On this report, the police registered FIR for offence under Section 306 IPC and started investigation. After due investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions from where it was committed for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer. The learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered to frame charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 306 IPC. Hence, this present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the petitioner as there is no evidence pointing out complicity of the petitioner in commission of said offence. It is argued that the petitioner and the deceased were partners and if there was loss caused to firm, the petitioner cannot be held responsible and said to be harassing the deceased. There is no evidence that the accused petitioner had threatened or abated commission of suicide. If the deceased was stressed out owing to business, the petitioner had various remedies available under the law. The ingredients of Section 107 IPC i.e. intentionally aiding, by an act or omission is clearly missing. It cannot be said that the petitioner instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, the offence under Section 306 IPC is clearly not made out. Therefore, the trial court has committed an error in framing charge for offence under Sections 306 of IPC.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the deceased in his suicide note has specifically named the present petitioner that he harassed and threatened him, therefore, he is committing suicide. Further it is settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of powers conferred under Section 397 Cr.P.C is very limited. Therefore, the trial court has not committed any error in framing charge for offence under Sections 306 IPC.

6. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. From the perusal of FIR and documents on record, the allegation against the present petitioner is that he harassed and threatened the deceased Mana Ram, causing loss to the