( 1 ) THE petitioner by this Criminal Revision Petition No. 274 of 2000 seeks an order quashing the order dated 19. 4. 2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge framing charge against the petitioner under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case are that upon a DD entry lodged in the police station regarding the incident of suicide, the police reached the spot at the factory No. C. S. SMA where they found on the second floor in the godown of the factory body of one person, namely. Rajesh Kumar, lying with the plastic rope tied around its neck and the other end of the rope was fixed to a hook to the roof. On search of the body, a suicide note was Iying which stated :

I. Rajesh Kumar s/o Ram Chand r/o AG-240. Shalimar Bagh, Ph: 7135502 and I work in R. P. Wool Co. Pvt. Ltd. at C-4, SMA. I on my own will wanted to leave my job to work on my own. My employer Mr. H. L. Jain had got me involved in a talse case and forcibly got a note executed for misappropriation by me of around Rs. 37,621. 00 and had threatened me to get my family killed by Sudama Pehalwan who works for them if I did anything against them. I have no evidence to prove my innocence. H. L. Jain (Hira Lal Jain) is responsible for my situation. He has forced me to take wrong steps. His phone Nos. 7244163. 7133517. 7525250,2525983. I have been working in D. P. Wool since 1992. Most of sale transaction of ready made articles is not shown on record and on this sales tax is nut paid to the Government, in the same way in the sale transaction of wool, the date is not put on the receipts. (This fact is known to me and H. L. Jain; it is not known to the other staff) and the actual cash is not shown on receipts and, however, I don t know why it is done. I am being implicated because I wanted to leave the job and I did not agree to stay despite his request. Entire staff does not know the reality that is why they take me a lier. In order to save the tax the entire staff is asked to sign on the register of D. P. Spinning despite we work in the showroom of D. P. Wool Pvt. Ltd. "

( 2 ) ON the basis of the DD entry, a case under Section 306 of. the Code was registered and challan filed upon which charges against the accused were framed vide order dated 19. 4. 1999. The challenge to the order dated 19. 4. 1999 is on the ground that upon perusal of the material available with the Court, the charge under Section 306, Indian Penal Code could not be made out. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through a large number of judgments in Pradeep S. Ahluwalia v. The State, 1999 Cri. LJ. 4145=81 (1999) DLT 111 (Delhi); Ghansham Dass v. State of Punjab, 1999 (4) Crimes 372; Mahendra Singh and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996 Crl. LJ. 894=11 (1996) CCR 570 (SC); Chanchal Kumari and Others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, AIR 1986 SC 752; State of Gujarat v. Pradyuman Ramanlal Mehta and Others, 1999 Crl. LJ. 736; V. Adinarayana and Another v. State of A. P. , 2000 Crl. L. J. 1182; Alka Grewal v. State of M. P. , 2000 Crl. LJ. 672; Laxmi and Anr. v. State, 85 (2000) DLT 319. The dicta of all the judgments appears to be that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and statement of witness recorded in support of the same taken on their face value, does not make out a case against the accused and does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence which is alleged against the accused, then the proceedings ought to be quashed. The powers of the High Court to act under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have also been clearly spelt out in M/s. Pepsi Food Limited and Ors. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128=iv (1997) CCR 108 (SC)=vi (1998) SLT 102, where it was held

"no doubt, the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless. But that should not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Ar