HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3226 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 2, Bhadohi-Gyanpur in Session Trial No. 46 of 2024 (State vs. Ashis), arising out of Case Crime No. 262 of 2023, under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S. Bhadohi, District-Bhadohi, by which the discharge application moved by the revisionist has been dismissed. The revisionist in the said application moved before the learned Sessions Judge has taken a ground that mere words or chatting between the parties is not ground for implicating the accused / revisionist under Section 306 I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that initially an F.I.R. bearing No. 262 of 2023 was lodged against the revisionist under Sections 366 and 506 I.P.C. However, after after completion of investigation, a chargesheet has been submitted under Section 306 I.P.C. and therefore, the chargesheet submitted under Section 306 I.P.C. is false and baseless, as such no material attracting Section 306 I.P.C. was available during the course of investigation and hence, no such charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is liable to be framed against the revisionist. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon several judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and another, 1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 438, Central Hospital vs. Savita S. Bodke and others, 1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 439 and Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Virendra Kumar Kori, Virendra Kumar Yadav Ashis .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Sanju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2000 [arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6656 of 2001] AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has submitted that there was some love affair going on between the revisionist and the daughter of opposite party no. 2 and as a consequence thereof, some dispute and hostility developed between the revisionist and the deceased victim which as led her to take a decision to end her life. He next submitted that, there is sufficient material on record to frame the charge against the revisionist under Section 306 I.P.C. He further submitted that the revisionist will have sufficient opportunity to defend his case, if the trial is conducted. 5. Having regard to the fact that the deceased has committed suicide as the relations between revisionist and the deceased became hostile; for one of the other reasons, as there were some close relations and proximity between two earlier. 6. In such circumstances, if the trial is conducted, the revisionist will have ample opportunity to adduce evidence in his favour and also will have further opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Since the deceased died under mysterious circumstances and as alleged that the revisionist was responsible for abating suicide by the deceased, is a matter of evidence and trial. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the other material brought on record, this Court finds that no infirmity with the impugned order. 7. The instant revision lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 18, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 3226 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad