ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J.

1. The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 23.12.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No.45 of 2017, whereby a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the Applicant.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Applicant is a veterinary doctor. Before 2 years of the incident he visited the house of Kusumlata (the deceased) at Village Kohka Koliyari to see her for marriage purpose and after inquiry he chose her to marry her. Thereafter, he had been visiting her house and talking with her and her family members on mobile phone. He had also taken to his father and grand father to show her. After few days, he had also taken his sisters to show her. Thereafter, he had been telling that he will marry her only. When marriage of Mansingh, brother of deceased Kusumlata was fixed, at that time, parents of Kusumlata asked the Applicant to ask his parents for fixation of his marriage with Kusumlata so that they could arrange marriage ceremony of their son Mansingh and daughter Kusumlata together. Thereafter, for about 15 days, the Applicant did not give any reply nor did he take any family member to the house of Kusumlata. On 1.4.2017, i.e., the date of incident at about 10 a.m., Kusumlata talked to the Applicant on phone and while talking to him she suddenly started weeping. On being asked, she told her parents that the Applicant telling her that she belongs to a poor family and he is a doctor he will not marry her. Thereafter, on the same day, at about 1:30 p.m, Kusumlata consumed poisonous substance in her room and committed suicide. Morgue was lodged by her brother Mansingh. Post mortem examination was conducted on her dead body. Statements of witnesses were recorded during morgue inquiry and on the basis of the said statements offence has been registered. Statements of witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against the Applicant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide the impugned order dated 23.12.2017, the Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the Applicant. Hence, this revision.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that from perusal of the entire charge-sheet it is clear that none of the witnesses has stated against the Applicant that he abetted the deceased for commission of suicide. There is also no allegation of cruelty or harassment by the Applicant to the deceased. There is nothing to show in the entire charge-sheet that the Applicant played any active role direct or indirect to facilitate commission of suicide. There is no proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of the Applicant with that of the suicide committed by the deceased. He further submitted that even if the evidence on record is taken as it is, the only thing that is established is that initially the Applicant had agreed to marry the deceased, but later on, he refused to marry her. Only on the basis of this, prima facie, offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the Applicant.

4. On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that there is sufficient material available on record for presuming that the Applicant has committed the offence and as such there is no illegality in the order impugned framing charge against the Applicant warranting interference by this Court.

5. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6. The question in the present case is whether on considering the entire available material to be correct a prima facie case for alleged commission of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the Applicant or not?

7. At this juncture, it is appropriate to look into the provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of