JUDGMENT :

K.Natarajan, J.

This revision petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Sessions Case No.222 of 2016 for having dismissed the application filed by them under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') vide order dated 7-3-2018.

2. The petitioners are the accused before the trial Court and the rank of the parties are retained for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case before the trial court is that Rajajinagar Police, Bengaluru, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the I.P.C.') based on the complaint filed by one Guruprasad @ Raghavendra, the elder brother of the deceased-Deepa, who committed suicide on 23-8-2013 in her house by hanging to a ceiling fan. The deceased left the death note alleging that the accused persons are the cause for her committing suicide. Based upon the complaint, the Police arrested the accused and after investigation, they have filed charge sheet. After committal of the case by the Magistrate, the accused persons appeared before the trial Court and moved an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C for discharging them from the charges, which came to be dismissed by the trial Judge. Hence, this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no direct evidence against the petitioners for having abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The case of the prosecution is only based upon the death note of the deceased. Even otherwise, there is no specific allegation that they have abetted the deceased and as per the death note, the deceased said to have given some lakh of rupees to the accused persons by hand loan. The same was not return by them. It is also stated by her that she has borrowed loan from some other person and given to the accused, but the accused have not repaid the same. Hence, she committed suicide. That itself is not a ground to frame the charges against the accused persons there is no strong material placed against the accused persons. Hence, he prayed for discharging them from the charges.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the statement of the family members, the neighbours and death note left by the deceased clearly goes to show that the accused troubled her without repaying the money. The deceased was deserted woman, living separately along with her son, borrowed money from third person and lent to the accused, who are relatives of the deceased. Entire charge-sheet material goes to show that due to the act of the accused, the deceased constrained to commit suicide. Therefore, the trial Court is required to consider all the aspects only after full fledged trial. Therefore, he prayed for dismissing the revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the charge-sheet material.

7. It is not in dispute that the deceased-Deepa was running a beauty parlor in rented premises; lived along with her son, and committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan on 23-8-2013 during night in her house by leaving the death note. After receipt of the information, the brother of the deceased lodged the complaint. Based upon the complaint, the Police registered a case against the accused. The complaint reveals that the complainant lodged the complaint, after the receipt of information and himself finds out the death note of the deceased and he has stated that the accused persons borrowed huge amount from his sister and did not repay. Due to which, she has committed suicide.

8. After visiting the spot, the Police have seized the death note. Inquest panchanama prepared by the Police on the dead body and recorded the statement of Munisiddegowda-the father of the deceased. He has stated tha