ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner/accused for quashment of FIR registered vide Crime No.460/2021 at Police Station Bilpank, District Ratlam for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and also charge sheet dated 25.09.2021 filed in the matter.

2. As per the prosecution, on 11.11.2020, a report was lodged by Yogendra Singh to the effect that he is the Sarpanch of Village Pipalkhuta and his brother Vijay Singh has informed that his uncle Mahendra Singh has committed suicide at Pargantiya water well by hanging himself. On the information a marg was registered and investigation was commenced during the course of which a suicide note written by the deceased Mahendra Singh himself was recovered. Therein he had stated that he is committing suicide due to the acts of the petitioner who had been talking ill about him and his family members and had been insulting all of them which had resulted in loss of his reputation. The same had also resulted in harassment to him on account of which he is committing suicide. Statements of certain witnesses were also recorded. On the basis of suicide note and statements of witnesses, the petitioner has been implicated for the present offence. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed by the Police before the Court concerned.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The entire allegations as leveled against the petitioner even if taken to be true at their face value do not amount to an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. There is no allegation against the petitioner of either instigating or abetting the deceased in any manner to commit suicide and it cannot be said that due to acts of the petitioner the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide. He had various other legal remedies available to him.

4. The act alleged against the petitioner is only to the effect that he had been talking ill about the deceased and his family members and had been insulting them and causing loss of his reputation on account of which the deceased was feeling harassed. The same cannot in any manner be said to be abetment or instigation or even a remote cause for the deceased to commit suicide. It is hence submitted that the FIR registered against the petitioner be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State has submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to proceed against the petitioner and it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is made out in view of which the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the parties at length and have perused the record.

7. Section 107 of IPC makes it obligatory for the prosecution to show and establish the element of instigation. The Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2002 SC 1998), has opined as under :-

13. ... Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased “to go and die”, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of “instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion.”

8. In the case of Sanju (supra) , the accused allegedly told the deceased „to go and die‟. Yet Apex Court opined that it does not constitute the ingredient of „instigation‟. In the instant case, if story of prosecution is read and believed as such the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had been talking ill about the deceased and his family