The trial court must pass a speaking order while framing the charge against the accused, giving short reasons in support of its conclusions. The material on record must disclose a prima facie case against the accused.

( 1 ) THIS is a criminal revision against the order of learned ASJ dated 20th March, 1992 whereby charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code was framed against the petitioners.

( 2 ) SMT. Veena was married to Subhash Chand sometime in January 1986 according to Hindu customs. The allegation against the revisionists, namely Pradeep Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased, Km. Shashi and Km. Suman, sisters-in- law of the deceased and Smt. Raj Rani, mother-in-law of the deceased and Subhash Chand, husband of the deceased is that they used to harass the deceased and treated her with cruelty which drove her to despair resulting in her suicide.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the dying declaration of the deceased, she resided in the house of her in-laws along- with her husband Subhash Chand, mother-in-law, two sisters- in-laws and brother in-law. There used to be altercations on small and trivial matters. Sisters-in-law used to quarrel with her and the mother-in-law and the husband did not cooperate with her. Suman, petitioner No. 4 slapped her about three and a half months before the incident and also pushed her and threw soap water in her eyes. Thereafter the deceased started living separately on the first floor of the house alongwith her husband and children. This did not diminish the tension in the family. On 4th June, 1989, the deceased asked Subhash Chand to accompany her to the chola ceremony of her sister s son. But the husband refused to go with her. This resulted in a quarrel between the husband and wife and the former slapped the latter. The deceased thereupon consumed "def", an insecticide, and then poured kerosene oil over her body and set herself ablaze. According to the dying declaration the deceased took this step as being wary of daily quarrels.

( 4 ) THE deceased sustained 90% burn injuries to which she succumbed on 5th June, 1989. The dying declaration of the deceased was converted into the First Information Report and case under Section 306 Indian Penal Code was registered. On completion of investigation, the petitioners alongwith co-accused Subhash Chand were charge sheeted and on commitment the case came up before the Court of Smt. Sharda Aggarwal, ASJ, Delhi for trial. The learned Trial Court on 20th March, 1992 passed an order framing charge against the petitioners under Section 306/34 IPC. It is this order against which the petitioners have come up in revision for quashing of the said order.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned ASJ is not a speaking order and has been passed without discussing the respective arguments of the Counsel for the parties. He urged that from the order it is not possible to discern as to on what basis the learned ASJ came, to the conclusion that a Prima facie case was made out against the petitioners. Learned Counsel further argued that the accusations as contained in the dying declaration do not constitute an offence of abatement to commit suicide on the part of the petitioners nor is there an allegation. that the petitioners goaded Veena to commit suicide. Commenting upon the dying declaration, learned Counsel high lighted the fact that only two specific instances of harassment had been stated by the deceased. First incident took place three and a half months before the occurrence for which Suman has been named and the second incident took place on the fateful day when Subhash Chand is said to have given a slap to the deceased. Learned Counsel submitted that the first incident was too remote and could not be a cause of suicide of the deceased and the second incident does not involve the petitioners at all as there is no allegation of the deceased that the petitioners were instrumental in the quarrel which took place between her and Subhash. He added that the petitioners were not even present when the second incident took place. As a consequence it was urged that when accused were not present at the