[2025:RJ-JP:16736] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1569/2019 1. Dharampal Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh, R/o Kg 3/84 Vikas Puri New Delhi 2. Sushila W/o Shri Dharampal Singh, R/o Kg 3/84 Vikas Puri New Delhi 3. Khushboo W/o Brijesh Singh D/o Dharampal Singh, R/o Kg 3/84 Vikas Puri New Delhi ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Munshiram S/o Ramdutt, R/o P. No. 50 Shankar Nagar-B Road No 1 Murlipura Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. Sahajveer Baweja and Mr. T.C. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sankalp Sogani, Ms. Muskan Verma, Mr. Umang Jain and Mr. Anuj Rohila Mr. Imran Khan, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/03/2025 1. The instant criminal revision petition is preferred by petitioners-accused aggrieved and dissatisfied from order dated 16.04.2019 in Session Case No.15/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.16, Jaipur Metro, whereby learned Trial Court has directed to frame the charge under Section 306 IPC, against the petitioners [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (2 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] 2. Learned counsel on behalf of petitioner-accused submitted that at the instance of complainant Munshi Ram (father of deceased Brijesh Singh), a complaint for abatement and instigation to commit suicide by petitioners was lodged and on basis of said complaint, an FIR was registered at P.S. Murlipura, Jaipur. He referred the facts of the case and submitted that petitioner No.3 Khushboo got married to Brijesh Singh on 10.02.2008, but she was maltreated by husband (deceased) and other in-laws to demand of dowry. He further submitted that after facing harassment and cruelty at the hands of husband and her in- laws, petitioner No.3 has lodged the report in New Delhi, but husband of petitioner No.3 realizing his mistake has compromised the matter and petitioner No.3 has withdrew said complaint. He further submitted that even the beatings and harassment were continued thereafter, and on 08.07.2013, another FIR No.50/2013 was registered at P.S. Murlipura, Jaipur. He also referred the medical report of injuries sustained by petitioner No.3, and submitted that after this report, the husband of petitioner No.3 again realized mistake and after expressing sorry the matter was again compromised. He submitted that the closure report filed by police was rejected by the Trial Court on 27.05.2013. He also referred the record and submitted that thereafter, deceased Brijesh Singh was arrested by police under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. 3. He submitted that the petitioner No.3 was again humiliated by her husband and clothes were publicly torned and as a result, FIR No.152/2013 was registered, wherein police has filed a [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (3 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] charge-sheet under Sections 498A, 332 and 324 IPC. He further submitted that aggrieved of cruelty and Domestic Violence, cases were filed under the law. He also submitted that a false report was filed against the petitioner No.3 and one of such report has filed by respondent No.2 in P.S. Murlipura as FIR No.240/2010, which was closed by filing negative closure report (F.R.) after investigation. He further referred the record and submitted that on basis of complaint filed by respondent No.2 about suicide of his son, FIR No.318/2013 was registered at P.S. Murlipura and during investigation, police has recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He submitted that these statements are omnibus in nature and all are stereo type. He further submitted that none of the statement reveals any specific fact, which is sufficient to draw a conclusion that any of petitioner or petitioners have created a circumstances, which is sufficient to instigate Brijesh Singh to commit suicide. He further submitted that a suicide note is recovered and the language used in suicide note clearly indicate that deceased has referred the cases registered against him, and in some of them the deceased himself compromised with petitioner No.3. 4. He submitted that FIR No.318/2013 was challenged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by filing petition No.3508/2014 and 2372/2014, wherein FIR was quashed by this Hon’ble Court, but same was reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also submitted that a Coordinate Bench clearly indicated that deceased was under depression and due to depression, he has developed suicidal tendency, which resulted into suicide by him. He further apprised [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (4 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] that both the orders were set aside for Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP filed by respondent No.2 and afterwards police has filed a charge-sheet. He further submitted that there is not any single iota of evidence against any of the petitioner as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are residents of Delhi and none of them have visited the residence or business place of deceased, soon before his death. He further submitted that there is no connecting evidence or link to connect petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 with any act of abatement or instigation committed with deceased. He further submitted that in a case of matrimonial dispute, if a wife has suffered cruelty or harassment then she has a right to file a complaint in the Police Station or before the Court, but same cannot be treated as instigation to abate the suicide. He also referred the statement of witnesses and submitted that not a single incident is referred during investigation, which is sufficient to charge petitioners under Section 306 of IPC. He further submitted that the Trial Court was duty bound to consider ingredient under Section 306 IPC as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ganguly Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750, M. Mohan Vs. State (2011) 3 SCC 626 and S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190. 5. Learned counsel has further referred the judgments in case of Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200, State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 188, Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 259, Sanju @ Sanjay Vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371, Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (5 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] 135, M. Arjunan Vs. State (2019) 3 SCC 315, Shabbir Hussain Vs. State of M.P. (2021) SCC OnLine SC 743, Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC 351, Chandra Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1379/2021), Arvind Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan 2015 (2) RLW 1498 (Raj.) and Atul Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2021) SCC OnLine Del. 4107 and submitted that to frame a charge under Section 306 IPC, the mental state of accused must be proved and unless mens rea is proved a charge under Section 306 IPC is not made out. He further submitted that the instigation must be direct and sufficient to instigate deceased to commit suicide. He also referred the material on record and submitted that the respondent No.2 and witnesses relating to him have made allegation about extra marital affair of petitioner No.3, but nothing was found proved. He submitted that these are false allegations made against the petitioner No.3 and none of the allegations were substantiated from any proof. He further referred judgment in case of Ghusabhai Raisanghbhai Chorasiya and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (2015) 11 SCC 753 and K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka (2017) 11 SCC 176 and submitted that extra marital affair is not sufficient to draw a conclusion to frame charge under Section 306 IPC. At last, he referred judgment in case of Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 and submitted that the Trial Court is duty bound to consider case of discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and only when a charge is made out then it can proceed to frame charge under Section [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (6 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] 228 of Cr.P.C. He further referred the order passed by the Trial Court and submitted that only on suspicion, a charge was framed against the petitioners. 6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 complainant and also by learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Senior Advocate while referring the material on record has submitted that petitioner No.3 got married to Brijesh Singh and since then her activities were suspicious, but when tried to stop, she filed false cases against deceased-Brijesh Singh (husband of petitioner No.3) and other family members. He also submitted that petitioner No.3 has filed criminal cases at Delhi and also at Jaipur only to harass deceased- Brijesh Singh. He further referred the documents and submitted that even a petition under the Domestic Violence Act was also filed, but same was dismissed. He further submitted that the petitioner No.3 has posed herself as victim and she made false allegations against deceased Brijesh Singh. He referred the allegations and submitted that deceased was a tea-totler, whereas in criminal cases, petitioner No.3 called him as a heavy drunkard person. He further submitted that the dispute started from 2010 when petitioner No.3 has filed an FIR in Delhi and after apology by wife (petitioner No.3) both have started to live together. He submitted that thereafter, the activities of petitioner No.3 were suspicious as she indulged in affair with other person(s) and when she was caught, she has framed deceased in false criminal cases. He also submitted that the petitioner No.3 has not only harassed the deceased, but humiliated to the extent that the deceased was [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (7 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] forced to commit suicide. He referred the suicide note and submitted that the object behind harassment was to get the property of deceased and settle at Delhi. He further submitted that after registration of FIR by respondent No.2 complainant, two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed and same were allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, but the order was set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court and after setting aside and quashing the order, a charge-sheet was filed. He also referred the charge framed by the Trial Court and submitted that the charge order is itself a speaking order and there is no ground to interfere in the order passed by the Trial Court. He further submitted that after framing of charge, statement of PW-1 complainant has already been recorded. He further submitted that a list of criminal cases registered against Hawa Singh Bawariya @ Rakesh @ Naresh, who was discharged by Trial Court is placed on record. He further submitted that a list of cases registered against Dharmpal Singh (petitioner No.1) is available on record. 7. Learned Senior Advocate placed reliance upon observation in judgment dated 09.04.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.515-516 of 2018 titled as Munshi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan etc. by Hon’ble Supreme Court and submitted that all these grounds were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside quashing order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 along with learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record and also considered the judgment as referred by learned counsel for [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (8 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] petitioners and learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.2. 9. The facts giving rise to instant revision petition are that deceased-Brijesh Singh got married to petitioner No.3 on 10.02.2008 and from wedlock, the couple were blessed with baby boy on 29.10.2009. After the marriage, several complaints were lodged by petitioner No.3 for cruelty and harassment against deceased-Brijesh Singh (husband) and his family member(s). A case under Domestic Violence Act is also filed before a Criminal Court. The deceased Brijesh feeling constant fear of arrest and harassment because of alleged false implication in criminal cases has committed suicide on 08.07.2013. Two suicide notes were recovered. Respondent No.2 (father of deceased) has filed an FIR No.318/2013 for offence to abate suicide under Section 306 IPC against present petitioners and others. Two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed to quash FIR and same were allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Aggrieved from said orders in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions No.2372/2014 and 3508/2014, a SLP was filed by respondent No.2 and Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing appeal, has set aside the order dated 15.04.2015 passed in both the criminal misc. petitions by Coordinate Bench of this Court. As a result of order by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the investigation has commenced and after investigation, a charge- sheet has been filed against four persons including present petitioners. 10. Learned Trial Court while considering the charge on 16.04.2019 in Sessions Case No.15/2018 has discharged the [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (9 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] accused Hawa Singh from charge under Section 306 IPC, but directed to frame charge against three petitioners under Section 306 IPC. 11. Instant revision petition is filed against the order to frame charge passed under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. After considering the material forwarded to a Criminal Court, it is duty bound to consider the same with a view that whether on the basis of the material available on record, a prima facie case or necessary ingredients of offence against accused is made out or not. The power to discharge under Sections 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C. is very limited at this stage, but the Court has to consider only a prima facie case and perused the material available on record, which was forwarded by police in support of charge-sheet. 12. 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 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 sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused is not made out. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (10 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (11 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] 15. Herein this case, the matter pertains to offence under Section 306 IPC and on multiple occasions, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the basic ingredients relating to Section 306 IPC. Very recently in case of Jaideep Singh Praveen Singh Chhabra Vs. State of Gujarat 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679 while considering the judgments in case of Uday Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301 has pointed out that following essential ingredients to be fulfilled to bring a case under Section 306 of IPC:- (i) The abatement. (ii) The intention of accused to instigate or abate the deceased to commit suicide. Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated for conviction under Section 306 of IPC, the presence of clear mens rea and the intention to abate the act is essential. Mere harassment by itself is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abating suicide. The element of mens rea again simply be presumed or inferred, it must be evidence and explicitly discernible. 16. In case of Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu (supra), Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Vs. State of MP (supra), M. Arjuna Vs. State (supra), Shabbir Hussain Vs. State of MP (supra), K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) and Ghusabhai Raisanghbhai Chorasiya and Ors. Vs. State (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered ingredient of Section 107 and also of Section 306 IPC. The principle clearly indicate that in order to frame a charge [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (12 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] for offence under Section 306 IPC, it is necessary to establish presence of mens rea to commit crime. The prosecution has to establish from the material that accused instigated the deceased either by act or omission or by commission or by persistent cruelty or harassment, only then is a case of abatement of suicide be made out. There has to be a specified act to instigate someone to fall within definition of Section 107 or Section 306 IPC, but without drawing a conclusion about the availability of ingredient, a charge cannot be framed under Section 306 IPC. 17. This Court has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (supra), M. Arjuna Vs. State (supra) and Mariano Anto Bruno Vs. Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1628/2022), while allowing S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1379/2021 on 06.04.2023 to discharge accused from charge under Section 306 IPC. 18. A perusal of law referred clearly indicate that a charge under Section 306 IPC can only be framed if the ingredients of offence as mentioned herein above are made out and if sufficient material is not available then merely on simple allegations, a charge cannot be framed. The harassment as claimed must be sufficient to draw a conclusion that the harassment was direct and it was only to instigate any person to commit suicide. 19. Learned Trial Court after referring the facts and law up to four pages, but on last page just placing reliance upon suicide notes has directed to frame charge under Section 306 IPC. The Trial Court has neither made any attempt to consider the material available on record nor observed that the ingredients as necessary [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (13 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] to frame charge under Section 306 IPC are available and case of discharge is not made out. There is no petition to challenge discharge of Hawa Singh so we are not considering the justification of discharge of Hawa Singh, but it is apparent on record that the order of Trial Court is based only on suicide notes and not upon any other material. 20. We have referred the principle of law, required be considered by Trial Court while considering the provision of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C., as framing of charge is not a mechanical process rather it must indicate application of mind. After perusing the impugned order, I am of considered view that the impugned order does not show any application of mind by learned Trial Judge. At the stage of Additional Sessions Judge, it is expected to consider entire material forwarded by prosecution, which includes material in favour of accused as well in favour of prosecution. An Additional Sessions Judge is not a Post Office just to frame a charge on basis of charge-sheet forwarded by police. 21. Herein this case, since there is no application of mind, therefore, I have no option except to set aside the order and remit back the matter to learned Trial Judge for fresh consideration as there are charges and counter-charges from both the sides. Herein, the petitioner No.3 has registered criminal cases against the deceased for harassment, cruelty and demand of dowry, whereas respondent No.2 complainant has leveled and allegation that his son was subjected to mental harassment by petitioners by implicating in false criminal cases. The Trial Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or roving enquiry at this stage, but only duty bound to consider material in light of legal position. [2025:RJ-JP:16736] (14 of 14) [CRLR-1569/2019] 22. In view of discussion made herein above, the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 16.04.2019 is set aside, qua present petitioners. 23. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration at the stage of charge under Sections 250 and 251 of BNSS (old provision under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C.). 24. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /193