ORDER

1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners under section 482 of 1 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered at Crime No.172/2015 at Police Station Tyonda, Distt. Vidisha for the offence punishable under sections 306/34 and 120-B of IPC and its subsequent criminal proceedings.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.2.2015, some altercation took place between the deceased- Maharaj Giri, Sachin Giri, Krishangopal Das and accused- Goverdhan Sharma and his brothers for which FIR was registered. Thereafter, accused persons started threatening them to kill, due to which, deceased- Maharaj Giri, Sachin Giri, Yashoda Bai, Poonam Giri committed suicide by hanging themselves collectively. Thereafter, Merg Nos.28, 29, 30, 31/2015 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. Thereafter, FIR bearing Crime No.172/2015 was registered for the offence under sections 306 and 34 of IPC against the present petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that prima facie o n the facts and evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence under section 306 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners/accused as there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioners in any manner instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments passed by the apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC 659] and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371] and contended that the petitioners have not committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the petitioners have played any part or any role in any conspiracy which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submission so advanced by the petitioners by submitting that at this stage no interference is warranted.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Section 306 of IPC reads as under:-

"Section 306. 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. The 'abetment' has been defined in section 107 of the IPC, which reads as under:-

"Section 107. 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.

Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.â

8. As section 306 of IPC makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, for making a person liable for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of the accused, it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the 3 categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the IPC and, therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide or he must intentionally act by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the deceased.

9. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of MP, (2002) 5 SCC 371, the Hon'ble apex Court in paragraphs 9 to 11 has observed as under:-

"9. In Mahendra Singh v. State