R.L. Anand, J.

1. Nobody has given the appearance on behalf of the complainant.

2. This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the order dated 2.9.1994 passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak, who decided to frame charge against the petitioner under Section 506 I.P.C.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of Kashmiri Lal uncle of deceased Raj Kumar @ Raju. The story of the prosecution is that Raj Kumar alias Raju was employed as an artisan to learn about the work of golden chains at the shop of petitioner. On 6.4.1993 Raj Kumar was accused of stealing 10 grams of gold from the shop of the petitioner. The person of the deceased was searched by taking off all his clothes and he was also given beatings. On 26.4.1993 the deceased committed suicide by jumping himself before a running train. A written note was recovered from the pocket of the deceased in which he had stated that Surender Kumar present petitioner is responsible for his death because he has levelled false accusation of stealing 10 grams of gold. The learned trial Court for the reasons stated in para No. 5 of the impugned order decided to frame the charge against the petitioner under Section 306 I.P.C. and the said para of the order reads as under :-

"5. From a perusal of the writing recovered from the dead body of the deceased and the statement of Baldev Raj brother of the deceased and Kashmiri Lal complainant, prima-facie it appears that deceased Raj Kumar was under great stress and tension which he could not bear any longer on account of the threat of the accused and thereby he committed suicide. Moreover, at this stage, a mere suspicion against the accused for the commission of an offence is sufficient to frame the charge. In view of the above, the authorities cited by the learned defence counsel are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. In Raj Kumars case (supra), there was a dispute between husband and wife and the wife threatened the husband for committing suicide in case he did not return to matrimonial home. In these circumstances, the husband asked her to do whatever she liked. In that case the relations between the accused and the deceased was that of a husband and wife and civil remedy was also available to the wife against her husband. In Gulab Kaurs case (supra) , also no act of aiding the commission of the offence or instigating the deceased to commit suicide was made out because Smt. Gulab Kaur was a Supervisory Officer and she had only made some casual remarks. In such circumstances, it was held that it did not fulfil the ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. In Deepaks case (supra), the facts were totally different from the facts of the instant case. In that case, it was alleged that the accused had made7 certain overtures towards the deceased and threatened her to defame her. In such circumstances, the ingredients of abetment to commit the suicide were not made out. The facts of the case in hand are totally different from the facts of the cases cited above by the learned defence counsel."

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Shri Cheema, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjiv Sheoran, learned counsel for the State.

5. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as propounded by the learned trial Court that a charge can be framed on strong suspicion and that the merits of the case at that stage are not supposed to be inquired into, but this Court is of the considered opinion that the trail court has not rightly appreciated the allegations so as to bring the case of the State under Section 306 I.P.C. As per Section 306 whoever abets the commission of suicide, in that eventuality only he will be attracted with the ingredients of that section. Abetment can be express, direct, indirect or implied but there must be a close proximity between the alleged abetment and the effect. The petitioner was the employer. If his gold had been stolen or had not been accounted for by his employees or apprentice, he had the right to take the search and interrogate. In that eventuality if one or two slaps are given by the employer to his servant in order to get a confession even that is not barred. There is not an iota of evidence on the record prima facie to suggest that the petitioner even goaded, urged or excited the deceased to jump before a running train. Moreover, the alleged incident has taken place after a lapse of 20 days. The jumping in front of the running train, was the independent act of the deceased, it cannot be connected with the petitioner. In these circumstances, the learned trial court was not justified in framing a charge against the petitioner under Section 306 I.P.C. In this regard, reliance can also be placed on Gurdeep Singh v. State of Haryana 1998(3) R.C.R. 266.

6. Resultantly, I accept this revision, set aside the order dated 2.9.1994 and quash the charge under Section 306 I.P.C.