A charge under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment to suicide requires proof of a direct, proximate, and positive act of instigation or active facilitation by the accused; mere vague or omnibus allegations regarding harassment without such evidence do not justify framing a charge for abetment.

NAFR

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. Applicant has preferred this criminal revision seeking quashment of the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.77/2024, whereby charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 & 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 are framed against the applicant.

3. Factual matrix of the case, in nutshell, is that in the evening of 19.1.2023 deceased Purushottam @ Rajesh Chouhan hanged himself to death in his home. It is alleged that deceased committed suicide due to harassment by the moneylenders. Based on afore allegations, merg was registered and during course of inquiry, a suicide note was seized from the wife of deceased on 04.02.2023 in which reason for committing suicide assigned by deceased was constant torture meted out to him by moneylenders and his inability to repay lending amount. After merg inquiry, crime was registered for offence under Section 306 of IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 . Statement of wife of deceased was recorded in which she made allegation against applicant and other co-accused persons. After filing of charge-sheet upon completion of investigation, learned trial Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 framed charges under Sections 306, 34, 201 of IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 against accused persons including applicant herein.

4. During trial, charge has been framed against the applicant. Learned trial Court dismissed said application vide order dated 7.1.2025 observing that prima facie offence under Sections 306, 34, 201 of IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 is made out and fixed the trial for recording of evidence of prosecution.

5. Learned Counsel for applicant contends that necessary ingredients required for constitution of an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC do not exist in the instant case and, therefore framing of charge under that section by trial Court is untenable. He submits that from perusal of alleged suicide note it can be seen that the deceased has not taken name of present applicant, there is no averment as to the role played by present applicant and even there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant had abetted the commission of suicide. Essential ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 306 of IPC are abetment and intention to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide, which are missing in the present case. He next contended that in the entire charge sheet there is no material to frame charges against applicant for the alleged offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC or Section 4 of the Act of 1937 and as such, learned trial Court committed manifest illegality in framing the charges against applicant. Even if the whole version of the prosecution is taken as it is, no offence is made out against applicant. He next contended that co accused Shashank Jain, Rakesh Jain, Purushottam Madankar, Rakesh Madankar & Rajesh Madankar who were also arraigned as accused in the charge sheet along with present applicant, has preferred a criminal revision bearing CRR No.228/2025 before this Court against order framing of charge against them for the offence under Sections 306, 34, 201 of IPC Section 4 of the Act of 1937