[2025:RJ-JP:42933] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1027/2024 Saurabh Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, aged about 30 Years, R/o M.l. -87, Acc Colony, Kemur District Katni at present R/o Pratap Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P. 2. Sumit Singh S/o Shri Ramesh Singh, aged about 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Anan Nagar, Tehsil Rahil District Sagar M.p ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kirodee Lal Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, Addl.GA-cum-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/10/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Sessions Case No.8/2023, the instant revision petition has been preferred by which charge has been framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the alleged incident of suicide by the wife has occurred, the petitioner was not present at the residence. Counsel submits that there is no evidence available on the record which prima facie indicates that the petitioner never instigated or abated the deceased to commit suicide. Counsel submits that without passing a reasoned and speaking order, charge has been framed against the petitioner in a [2025:RJ-JP:42933] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1027/2024] cursory manner, hence, under these circumstances, the order impugned is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set- aside. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that there is ample evidence against the petitioner which indicates his involvement in commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, hence under these circumstances, charge has been framed against the petitioner by the Court below, which requires no interference of this Court and the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the order impugned has been passed by giving reference of the names of the witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Agency under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but no reasoned and speaking order has been passed by the Court below. 6. It is the settled proposition of law that the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at this stage and only prima facie case is required to be seen, but at the same time, it is also the settled proposition of law that at this stage of passing orders under Sections 226/227 Cr.P.C., the Court below is supposed to pass a reasoned and speaking order. 7. In the instant case, the reasoned and speaking order has not been passed by the Court below, the charge has been framed against the petitioner in cursory manner, on this count alone, the order impugned stands quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below for passing fresh orders. [2025:RJ-JP:42933] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1027/2024] 8. Needless to observe that a reasoned and speaking order would be passed by the Court below, after hearing the arguments of both the sides. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /25