Crl. Rev. No.2722 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH - Crl. Rev. No.2722 of 2010 (O&M). Decided on: October 01, 2010. Beant Kaur .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.S.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioner is wife of Gurjinder Singh who committed suicide by consuming poison on 19.05.2010. The petitioner has been charged for the offence under Section 306 IPC, alleging that she had abetted the commission of suicide by harassing him. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner is that her in-cordial relations with the mother of Gurjinder Singh and her refusal to resume cohabitation persuaded the deceased to commit suicide. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the necessary ingredients of abetment if seen in context to the definition . . . 1 Crl. Rev. No.2722 of 2010 (O&M). of abetment under Section 107 read with Section 306 IPC, are not fulfilled as such, it is a fit case where the order framing charges under Section 307 IPC should be quashed. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon State of Punjab Vs. Kamaljit Kaur, 2008 (2) Criminal Court Cases, 925, in which the High Court upholding the order of discharge of a wife in a case of suicide by husband leaving a suicide note that his wife was a woman of bad character, was upheld holding that offence under Section 306 IPC was not made out. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and with the able assistance of the counsel have gone through the material which forms part of the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. Without indulging in appreciation of evidence, at this stage, it is sufficient to observe here that a debatable question in context to the definition of abetment under Section 307 IPC would arise whether the failure of petitioner-wife to perform her matrimonial obligations including residing with her husband would fall with the definition thirdly of abetment under Section 107 IPC which reads that a person abets the doing of a thing who intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing. It can only be appreciated on the basis of evidence whether the petitioner has committed any illegal omissions which had aided the consumption of poison by her husband. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that as per the circumstances existing on the record, it is . . . 2 Crl. Rev. No.2722 of 2010 (O&M). clear that she was carrying pregnancy of 8 weeks at the time of death of her husband and that she had left her matrimonial home and was staying with her parents on account of her ill-health. The said contention may constitute a good defence to rebut the allegations in context to the provisions of Section 107 IPC, but at this stage, it will not be appropriate to pass an order discharging the petitioner. No ground is made out for quashing of the charges, at this stage as the above said debatable issue has to be determined on the basis of evidence to be produced before the Court. Maintaining conjugal rights appear to be a legal obligation of both the spouses. Whether there was a reasonable violation of the said legal obligation cannot be determined, at this stage on the appreciation of evidence. Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner during trial. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has suffered miscarriage in the alternative her presence before the trial Court be exempted. It is observed that in case on account of her physical or mental situation, she files an application for exemption from personal appearance, the trial Court will consider the same and if deemed appropriate allow it. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 01, 2010. rka . . . 3