[2025:RJ-JP:41528] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1062/2018 1. Sunder Lal Son Of Ram Swroop Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Mundanwada, Kslsn Police Station, Tahsil Mundawar, Distt. Alwar. 2. Lali Devi Wife Of Sunder Lal, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Village Mundanwada Kslsn Police Station Tahsil Mundawar District Alwar 3. Ramesh Chand Son Of Sunder Lal, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Mundanwada Kslsn Police Station Tahsil Mundawar District Alwar ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Shri Somdutt Yadav, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Nasarpur Behror District Alwar Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Sethi Mr. Rupendra Singh and Mr. Aman Manju For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Dushyant Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 26/09/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners aggrieved from order of charge dated 24.05.2018 in sessions case No.61/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mundawar, Dist. Alwar whereby charge under Sections 498A and 306 IPC were framed against petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners while referring the allegations made in complaint and further in the statement of witnesses, [2025:RJ-JP:41528] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1062/2018] recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. submitted that deceased was short tempered female and only due to small family issues, she committed suicide. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that deceased was subjected to any cruelty for any reason either for demand of dowry or for any other ground. He further submitted that name of Ramesh Chand and Lali Devi were not mentioned in the FIR as Ramesh Chand was in Delhi on date of incident where he was working. He further submitted that incident of suicide happened after 11 years of marriage, and there is no evidence to show harassment to deceased. He further submitted that Ramesh is working in CRPF and he was not in house when deceased has committed suicide. He further referred the investigation and submitted that only on the basis of hearsay evidence, a charge-sheet has been filed and police has not recorded statement Sumer and his wife, who were in fact star witnesses of the case. He further referred the material on record and submitted that deceased was suffering from illness and having a medical history, which was not considered by the trial court while framing the charge. He further referred mental status of deceased and submitted that despite mother of two children, she was ill tempered and only because of household work she felt annoyed and committed suicide. He further submitted that neither there is any provocation nor incident of conspiracy therefore the act of abetment of suicide were not proved for purpose of trial against the petitioners. He further referred judgment in case of Sarang Diwakar Amle and Ors. Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:41528] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1062/2018] State of Maharasthra 2022 SCC Online Bom 4125 and submitted that in absence of evidence of mental and physical cruelty, person cannot be charged for false allegations. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that police has investigated the matter and after investigation, police has found that petitioners have committed cruelty and as a result of cruelty, she was forced to commit suicide. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. The facts of the case in brief are that on 02.07.2017 complainant Somdutt Yadav, father of deceased Mamta Yadav has lodged a report about harassment and cruelty to his daughter by Sunderlal and Sumer s/o Sunderlal resulting in suicide by his daughter, a case is registered and matter is investigated. After investigation, police has found involvement of present petitioners Sunderlal, Lali Devi and Ramesh and filed a charge-sheet under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. Learned trial court after considering the material on record has framed charges on 24.05.2018. 6. The principles of law at the stage of charge were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. :(1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 398. It was held that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the [2025:RJ-JP:41528] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1062/2018] Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. 7. Again in case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering several judgments on the issue in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has held that the trial court while dealing with an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. [2025:RJ-JP:41528] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1062/2018] 8. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : (2021) 11 SCC 191 and relied upon in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023 INSC 555), it was held that at the stage of framing of charge and/or considering discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. A defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and / or at the stage of discharge of application. 9. It is necessary for any court to consider act of encouragement, instigation or committing any act leading any person to commit suicide as an act of abetment. The report itself indicated that deceased Mamta Devi has committed suicide after 11 years of her marriage, who was mother of two children. The statement of complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicated that he levelled certain allegations of mental and physical harassment, but same is not pressure or any heated exchange in anger, which itself is not sufficient to constitute an offene of abtement. It is necessary that there should be some instigation or enticement which significantly contributes to suicide. 10. After registration of case, police has investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet against petitioners. The statement recorded by police clearly indicated that several allegations were made against the petitioners and due to harassment and cruelty allegedly committed by present petitioners, deceased Mamta Devi was under immense mental pressure [2025:RJ-JP:41528] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1062/2018] which dragged her to commit suicide. The evidence collected by police were mentioned in detail in the charge-sheet. It is also evident that the statement of witnesses were recorded on multiple times by police. Even more than one investigating officer has investigated the case and found involvement of present petitioners. 11. As regard to truthfulness and correctness of allegation is concerned, same cannot be considered at the stage of charge. The evidence has to be considered during trial but not otherwise. The material on record is sufficient to frame charge under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, therefor it cannot be said that merely on allegation, present petitioners were charged under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. 12. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the trial court has not committed any error while framing charge under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, revision petition along with pending application, if any, is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /26