1 Dhanraj & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1057/2008 DATE OF ORDER : 13th May, 2009. HON'BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J. Mr.Mahesh Bora for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Choudhary for respondent No.2. Mr.Panney Singh, Public Prosecutor. This revision petition has been field by accused petitioner against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur dated 15.09.08 in Sessions Case No.17/08 by which charges under section 306 and 120B IPC have been framed against the said petitioners. Brief facts of the case, for the disposal of this revision petition are that on 10.09.07 complainant Hari Ram , s/o Rekha Ram (deceased) filed an FIR at Police Station Surpalia , District Nagaur stating inter alia that a piece of land which is situated just in front of their house was lying unoccupied since 20 to 30 years. The said land was 2 given by Gordhan Ram and Phusa Ram to the complainant family. His neighbour, Dhan Raj Gaur, (petitioner) called Munear Ram s/o Phusa Ram and Prakash s/o Chanda Ram and told them that the land does not belong to Rekha Ram and kuchha wall be constructed around the land and thereafter Dhan Raj will purchase the same. After that, Rekha Ram, father of the complainant was called by Dhan Raj who threatened him by saying that the unoccupied plot belongs to Munear Ram, Shravan Ram and Om Prakash, therefore, he should hand over that land to them. It was further stated in the FIR that thereafter all the accused persons constructed Kuchha wall over the plot. On this, father of the complainant approached reputed persons of the village for some compromise. On 09.09.08 all the accused persons called Rekha Ram to Dhan Raj's house and again threatened him. It was stated that Rekha Ram was so scared after this incident and he left his house and did not return. On 10.09.08 at about 6.00 AM the complainant, along with Sita Ram went to the lake side and found the shoes of his father near the lake. It was stated that his father had committed suicide due to the mental harassment given by the accused persons. 3 On this information, police registered case vide FIR No.25/07' under section 306 and 120B IPC and started investigation. During investigation accused person were arrested and after completion of the usual investigation, police filed challan against all the accused under the aforesaid sections. Thereafter, the case was committed for trial to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur who vide his judgment dated 15.09.08 framed charges against all the accused persons under section 306 and 120B IPC. Aggrieved by the order of framing of charges, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. Notice of this revision petition was issued to respondents , record of the case was called and arguments were heard. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the accused petitioners submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly framed charges against the petitioners, of the said offences. Learned counsel submitted that there was no nexus between the death of the deceased Rekha Ram and the alleged conduct of petitioners, for which 4 they have been charged for the offence under sections 306 and 120B IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused petitioners did not abate or provoke Rekha Ram to commit suicide. Thus, the accused were entitled to be discharged but the learned court on the assumption and presumption, framed the aforesaid charges . On the basis of aforesaid submissions, a request was made to quash the order of charge, accused petitioner be set free and revision may be allowed. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant party refuted the contentions and submitted that the accused petitioners were having criminal conspiracy among them . Dhan Raj wanted to purchase this land with the connivance of other accused persons and in that respect they created such an atmosphere and time and again threatened Rekha Ram. In these circumstances, Rekha Ram committed suicideand for that the accused petitioners were responsible. Learned counsel for the complainant party drew my attention towards the statement of witnesses and on the strength of those statements, contended 5 that the impugned order of framing charge, is not suffering from any irregularity. At the stage of charge, minute analysis of fact was not necessary. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the judgments rendered in Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt.Ltd. vs. Sanjay Choudhary & Ors. [2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 6] and State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh & Ors. ] (1991) 3 SCC 1] . Thus, it was urged that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the impugned order of framing charge, as well as record of the case, specially the statement of witnesses. It has come on record that Dhan Raj and other accused persons created such a pressure over Rekha Ram to hand over possession of the land in dispute. It was also stated by the witnesses that Rekha Ram was continuously threatened by the accused persons. The accused persons have claimed title over the disputed land with the aid of pattas, but in this respect there is a contrary evidence of concerned witness who has stated that no patta was issued by the concerned Department. At the stage of charge, it is settled law that strong suspicion 6 about commission of offence and involvement of the accused, are sufficient grounds for framing charge. In this respect, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the complainant party also support the conclusion. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh (supra) there were allegations against the husband of constantly making dowry demand from wife , beating and harassing her and creating an atmosphere of terror for her where the wife ultimately committed suicide. The husband was held responsible for creating an atmosphere which forced the wife to commit suicide. At this stage, without commenting or observing anything on the merit of the case, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of framing charge. The order deserves to be maintained. In the result, the revision petition filed by the accused petitioners is hereby dismissed and the impugned order is maintained. (MANAK MOHTA), J. 7 l.george