SABINA,J. - (1.) Vide this order above mentioned, two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the order whereby, charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') read with Section 120-B IPC was ordered to be framed against them.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that no offence punishable under Section 306 IPC can be said to have been committed by the petitioners. Petitioners have been falsely involved in this case. Learned counsel have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 1995 Cri. L. J. 3066 , wherein it was held as under:- "Demanding a sum of money given on loan is not an offence under any provision of the criminal law. Taking out a willing and mature lady to Ram Niwas Garden or certain hotels, is also no offence. Frequent visits by the accused-petitioner to the house of Smt. Kusum Devi was also no offence because it is not said that he was visiting the house against the wishes of Smt. Kusum Devi."
(3.) Learned counsel have next placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. State of Rajasthan 2012(2) Crimes 628 (Raj.) , wherein it was held as under:- "Mere threats of involving the family in a false and frivolous cases cannot be held to tantamount to instigation. Instigation has been interpreted to mean to provoke, to incite, to urge a person to do a particular act. However by these threats it cannot be held that the accused-respondents instigated Ashok Kumar to commit suicide. In the suicide note left by the deceased, he has merely stated that "in case Nisha were to come back home, she would ruin the family". Even the said suicide note cannot be held to be indicative of the fact that Nisha and her father, Dilip Kumar, have instigated or intentionally aided Ashok Kumar in committing suicide.";