For a charge of abetment of suicide, there must be a clear mens rea and an active act or direct act that led the deceased to commit suicide. The offence of extortion requires intentional inducement by putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly obtaining property.

JUDGMENT

1. Since, both the petitions arose from the same order and the relief sought are identical, therefore, the petitions are being heard and decided analogously by this common order.

2. The revision petitions under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2018 in S.T. No. 150/2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, District Raisen whereby the learned ASJ has framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 384 of IPC against the petitioners.

3. According to the case, on the basis of Marg Intimation Report , the police has registered the FIR against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 384 and 34 of IPC wherein it is mentioned that the deceased namely Kuldeep Raghuwanshi committed suicide by hanging himself. He left a suicidal note mentioning that the petitioners Eki@Ekta Jain and Arpit Jain who are siblings, did not return the ornaments pledged by the deceased in spite of payment of rupees 2 lacs. It is further alleged that they were demanding more money as interest. In furtherance to it, the co-accused/petitioner Mukesh Sahu had forcefully taken the motorcycle of deceased. On inquiry, the police found that due to money transaction between the petitioners and deceased, the petitioners have abetted the deceased to commit suicide and as a consequence thereof, the deceased ended his life.

4. Thereafter, after completing all the investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 306, 384, 34 of IPC as well as Section 11(Cha) of M.P. Moneylenders Act, 1934 and by passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court has framed the charges under sections 306 and 384 IPC. At this Juncture, it is necessary to be mentioned that earlier, due to typographical mistake, the learned trial Court has mentioned the offecnce 304 IPC instead of 384 IPC, same has been rectified by the trial Court on 12.10.2018 but in Cr.R No. 5220/2018, the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to bring out necessary correction. On the request of petitioner's counsel and keeping the fact in mind that the connected petition has been filed with correct particulars, without entering into technicality of the case, I deem fit to proceed further.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court for framing the charges suffers from grave irregularity as on reading the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioners. In the present case, no ingredients of abetment are fulfilled to make the offence of Section 306 IPC. He further submits that it is well-settled principle of law that to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens-rea to commit an offence. He submits that in the present case, no intention on the part of the petitioners to lead the deceased to commit suicide is found. He also submits that the offence of section 384 IPC is also not made out in the case as the incident regarding taking the motorcycle of deceased by the petitioner Mukesh Sahu was never reported to the concerned police station. The allegations made against the petitioners are general and frivolous. There is no iota of evidence which shows that the deceased was instigated or abeted by the accused persons for committing suicide. If the allegations made in the FIR, are taken into consideration in toto , no offence is made out under section 306 and 384 IPC against all the petitioners. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for allowing these petitions.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the petitions submitting that there is sufficient material available on record for framing the aforesaid charges. The petitioners have abeted the deceased on account of money transaction. The petitioners were trying to get more money from the deceased in spite of payment. Petitioner Mukesh Sahu had forcefully taken mo