IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR RADHEY SHYAM AND ANR. VS. STATE OF RAJ. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No.348 of 2006 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated March 21, 2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track_ No.1 Jaipur District Jaipur in Case No. 7 of 2006 framing charge against the accused petitioner under section 306 IPC. Date of Order : December 1, 2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. A.K. Gupta for the petitioners. Mr. B.N. Sandhu PP for the State BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by Radhey Shyam and Hanuman Sahai against the order dated March 21, 2006 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1 Jaipur District Jaipur in criminal case No. 7 of 2006, whereby the Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the petitioners under Section 306 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Bhonri Lal submitted a report to the SHO Police Station Shivdasspura on August 14, 2005 at 9.30 p.m. to the effect that one Rajkumar Khandelwal along with one Satya Meena came in Esteem Car and stated for taking his wife Asha along with them. He consumed some powder and drank water and returned back saying that he has consumed poison and all of you will be responsible for that. On the basis of this report an FIR under section 306 IPC was registered. Rajkumar Khandelwal died. It was alleged that from his possession one suicide note was recovered by the police. In that suicide note names of Radhey Shyam and Hanuman Sahai, who were brother in law of said Raj Kumar Khandelwal was mentioned. Upon this the police filed challan against the accused petitioners under section 306 IPC. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused petitioners under section 306 IPC. Against this order the present revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned lower court has not properly considered the ingredients of section 306 IPC. There must be some evidence to show that the accused abetted the commission of the offence. There is no material available on record to show that the petitioners instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2002 SC 1998) Swamy Prahladdas vs. State of M.P. (1995 SCC (Cr.) 943) Heera and 5 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2000 WLC 414) Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2007 SC 2457) State of Gujart vs. Sunil Kumar (1997 Cr.L.J. 2014) Vanna Singh vs. State of Rajasthan ( 2005 (1) R.C.C. 388) and Manoj Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1199 of 2007 decided on August 7, 2008. In these circumstances the order framing charge under section 306 IPC be set aside. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and argued that the order framing charge against the petitioners is not perverse. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has properly considered the material available on record and there is no illegality or infirmity in framing the charge against the petitioners. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order framing charge against the petitions. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order framing the charge. The Apex Court in Om Wati vs. State AIR 2001 SC 1507 held as under : “ ... it would not be safe at this stage to deprive the prosecution in proving its case on the basis of direct evidence, the statement of the deceased claimed to be admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act and the other documents including the inquest report allegedly disclosing the infliction of injuries on the person of the deceased which resulted in his death. The acceptance of the opinion of the doctors, as incorporated in the post more report for the cause of death of deceased being hepatic failure following viral hapatites' cannot be accepted on its face value at this stage. Therefore the order of the High Court would be illegal and liable tobe set aside.” “ The Supreme Court reminded the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.” 6. For these reasons the revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/