1. By this revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of the CrPC accused petitioner Radheshyam has challenged the order dated 2.3.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Sessions Trial No.60/2012 framing charges for offence under section 306 of the IPC against the petitioner.

2. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 1.1.2011 Sarpanch Radheshyam of village Athawakala received an information that there was a dead body lying near the Balaji Temple near the Jungle. The body belongs to an un known male person and merg was registered at No.21/2011 under section 174 of the CrPC. The dead body was identified by the family members to be Kamlesh s/o Heeralal Sharma; aged 40 years, resident of Khajuria, police station Ratangarh, District Neemuch. The merg intimation upon being investigated, it was found that the deceased Kamlesh had a wife Bhanvaribai, son Sanjay, brother Nandkishore and cousin Prahalad Sharma and Gulab Gurjer. The deceased Kamlesh was a driver by profession and had a dispute with the owner of the truck Radheshyam (present petitioner). The quarrel arose between his employer and Kamlesh regarding the account at the petrol pump at Ratangarh and the petitioner had issued threats, as a result of which, it was alleged that Kamlesh committed suicide on 29.10.2011. The postmortem was conducted and during the investigation, visra was also preserved and offence was registered under section 306 of the IPC against the accused petitioner and being aggrieved the revision petition filed by the present petitioner.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and the petitioner has been falsely implicated for offence under section 306 of the IPC and there was not an iota of evidence on record. Counsel submitted that only statements of interested witnesses have been recorded by the police and even if the aligations by the wife of deceased Bhanvaribai and other witness are considered the only allegations available against the petitioner were that he made demand for the return of his money given to the deceased Kamlesh as a loan from advance salary and other account such a demand cannot be said to be abetment of the offence to commit suicide. Counsel placed reliance in the matter of Pramjeetsingh Chawala v. State of M.P. Cri.L.J.2007 (3343) and Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of M.P. 2003(I) MPWN 34 and Devendra Singh v. State of M.P. 2007(III) MPWN 95 and Prakashchand v. State of M.P. 2007(I) MPWN 20 to submit that several decisions of the Court indicate that demand for due loan does not amount to abetment to commit suicide and the FIR was quashed.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court of Criminal Revision No.816/2001 Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma (supra) to urge that this Court had categorically held that borrower saying to creditor that he may commit suicide does not amount to instigation, any conversation between borrower and creditor does not amount to abetment to commit suicide then under the present circumstances the statement of deceased’s wife Bhanvaribai is considered, merely because the present petitioner demanded back his money it cannot be said that the petitioner had abetted to commit suicide. Counsel vehemently urged that the learned Judge of the trial Court had erred in drawing the conclusion that the threats issued by the petitioner were ingredients of abetment. Counsel submitted that the impugned order framing charge be set aside.

5. Counsel for the respondent/State per contra stated that the petitioner was fully implicated in the matter and submitted that at the time of framing of charge all that the Court required to do is consider whether prima facie there is material available of frame charge and proceed against the accused petitioner. The Court is not bound to consider whether the material is sufficient for conviction. Counsel submitted that the statement of Bhanvaribai and others wi