Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 03.04.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases), Ajmer, whereby Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC and has framed charges against the petitioner.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the deceased committed suicide on 25.11.2016, F.I.R. was lodged by brother of the deceased on 26.11.2016. In the F.I.R., it was mentioned that brother-in-law has misbehaved with the deceased, as a result of which she committed suicide. It is also contended that police after due investigation submitted negative final report. The matter was thereafter, reopened and the new Investigating Officer took a transcript on record which was a recording between husband of the deceased, father of the deceased and mother of the deceased. It is contended that from the transcript, police has concluded that petitioner has misbehaved with the deceased, as a result of which she committed suicide.

3. It is argued that no fresh material was collected by the Investigating Officer. All the witnesses including father, mother and brother of the deceased have stated that a day prior to her demise, she was sounding happy and did not complain about anything. It is also contended that there is no suicide note or any other evidence to come to the conclusion that petitioner is involved in the offence under Section 306 IPC.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Sanju @ Snjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh" AIR 2002 SC 1998 and "Vimlesh @ Poonam v. State of Rajasthan" 2017 (2) WLC (Raj.) 246, wherein provision of 306 IPC has been dealt with and it has been held that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. It was also observed that mere uttering of the word you die would not constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC as the same may not be intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

5. Investigating Officer is present in person in Court who has stated that in the transcript which was prepared after the demise of the deceased, it is mentioned that petitioner had misbehaved with the deceased. Petitioner is brother-in-law of the deceased and petitioners wife is cousin of the deceased. Deceased could not face her sister after the alleged act and committed suicide.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has also opposed the revision petition.

7. I have considered the contentions and have perused the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer.

8. Shubham Parihar, brother of the deceased has stated that they had a talk with the deceased on 24.11.2016 at 8:30 pm. She was sounding happy and she did not complain about anything. Similar is the statement of Sunil Parihar, father of the deceased.

9. Rakhi Parihar, mother of the deceased has stated that the petitioner caught hold of the hand of the deceased about twenty days prior to the date of suicide on which the deceased raised alarm. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law scolded the petitioner and the matter was amicably settled. It is also mentioned in her statement that deceased refused to lodge a complaint as that would have resulted into break up of two families. She has also mentioned that her daughter did not make any complaint a day prior to her demise and she was sounding happy.

10. All the other witnesses whose statement have been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 have stated that deceased was happy with her family members and she did not make any complaint. The only evidence which is against the petitioner is the transcript between father, mother and husband of the deceased but that transcript alone is not sufficient to bring home the crime against the petitioner holding of the hand of the deceased about twenty days prior to the incident cannot be considered as an instigation to the deceased to commit suicide, more particularly when she did not make any complaint to the police and she was sounding happy a day prior to her demise and did not make any complaint to her family members.

11. There was not an iota of evidence to come to the conclusion that the deceased committed suicide because of instigation of the petitioner, hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. Revision petition deserves to be and is accordingly, allowed. Impugned order is quashed and set aside. Stay petition also stands disposed.