1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Madan Lal Garg & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.23/2005. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 27th August, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Shailendra Singh for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Sharma PP for the State. Mr. Biri Singh ) for the complainant. Mr. Akhil Simloge) BY THE COURT: This revision petition under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 5.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer in Sessions Case No.95/2004 whereby charge has been framed against the accused-petitioners for the offence under sections 498A and 306 IPC. On a report lodged on behalf of Smt. Niranjana Garg in the concerned police station after investigation charge-sheet was filed under sections 498A and 306 IPC against the accused- petitioners who are in-laws of the complainant whose husband committed suicide. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused- petitioners is that in the instant case deceased Vijay committed 2 suicide on the basis of some casual remarks to the effect that the deceased should not create a scene and dieing was not easy. It is contended that the evidence of cruelty is missing, therefore, in the absence of ingredients of section 498A IPC no charge under the said section could be framed. On the other hand, it is contended that the learned trial court has passed a speaking order after perusal of the material available on the charge-sheet, therefore, no interference is required to be made by this court in its revisional jurisdiction. I have considered the submissions made before me. It appears that the learned trial court has up-till now recorded the statements of PW-1 Anil Goyal and PW-2 Smt. Shanti devi and these are the two important witnesses in the case. The cross-examination has also been done from the above witnesses, therefore, in the above circumstances when the learned trial court has passed a speaking order in relation to framing of the charge, it is not desirable at this state to comment upon the evidence recorded by the learned trial court because that may prejudice the case of the parties either side. In the case of Shyam Sunder Vs. State of Rajasthan- 1998 RCC 485 in the similar circumstances where the charges were framed under section 304B and 498A IPC and the matter framing charge was challenged, this court observed that after recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the revision preferred was liable to be dismissed for the reason that it is not 3 desirable to comment upon the evidence recorded in the case. In the similar circumstance in the present case, the impugned order of framing charge has been challenged and up-till now the statements of complainant Niranjana Garg and Smt. Shanti Devi have been recorded, therefore, I do not see a reason to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court of framing charge which is a speaking order. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J)