( 1 ) THE applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 307 of the Cr. P. C. feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15-2-2007 passed by II ASJ, Mhow, in ST No. 45/2007, whereby ordered for framing of the charge under Section 306 of the IPC.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that deceased Jagdish had borrowed a loan from the applicant/accused Paramjeetsingh and he was paying the loan in instalment. Jagdish had committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance on 29-3-2006 in mhow in his house. The matter has been reported to the police Mhow on which basis the police had registered inquest and started inquiry, sent the dead body of the deceasedi jagdish for postmortem examination and during inquiry the statement had been recorded. The deceased had also written a suicidal note which has been seized by the police wherein he stated that because of repeated demand of money by the accused paramjeetsingh he had committed suicide. After the inquiry the police had registered a case under Section 306 against the present applicant Paramjeetsingh and after investigation filed charge-sheet before the trial court. The trial Court, by impugned order dated 15-2-2007 came to the conclusion that prima facie a charge under Section 306 of the IPC is clearly made out against the applicant therefore ordered for framing of the aforesaid charge against the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by which the applicant has preferred this revision.

( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Govt. Advocate for the State and perused the record.

( 4 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as it is alleged that the applicant has given certain loan to the deceased Jagdish and if he cannot return the aforesaid loan amount then the Act of the applicant/accused does not come within the purview of Section 107 of the IPC for abetment of suicide by the deceased Jagdish and the learned trial Court has wrongly ordered for framing of the charge against the applicant, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order passed by the trial court and for discharge of the accused.

( 5 ) IN reply, the learned Govt. Advocate supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision.

( 6 ) ON perusal of the entire facts of the case and documents filed on behalf of the prosecutrix, the main document is the suicidal note alleged to be written by the deceased Jagdish wherein he stated that he borrowed some money from Paramjeetsingh, the accused and also paid considerable amount and the accused is demanding money from him and due to which he committed suicide.

( 7 ) THUS, only allegation in this suicidal note against the applicant is that repeated demand of the loan which he advanced to the deceased Jagdish and that by itself cannot come within the purview of Section 107 of the IPC for the act of abetment of suicide.

( 8 ) SAME is the statement of daughter of the deceased who stated before the police that her husband (father) deceased Jagdish was paying the loan amount to the applicant/accused Paramjeetsingh but instead of that the accused Paramjeetsingh repeatedly demanding loan amount from her husband.

( 9 ) SAME is the statement of wife of the deceased. Thus the prosecution wants to prove the charge under Section 306 of the ipc against the applicant.

( 10 ) TO understand proper position of law it will be useful to quote the provisions of section 107 of the IPC which defines the 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. Explanation 1 -"a person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document