Charanjit Talwar, J.

( 1 ) THIS judgment disposes of two revision peti- lions, namely, Cr. R. Nos. 216 and 224 of 1983, which were directed by Anandj. to be heard together.

( 2 ) BY Criminal Revision No. 216 of 1983 Ganga Devi, her son 0m Parkash and her grand son Bhupinder Kumar have sought quashing of the charge framed against them under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 6th August, 1983. The charge reads us under :--

"i, Shri B. B. Gupta, A. S. J : New Delhi charge you Om Parkash son of Hari Ram, (2) Bhupinder Kumar son of Om Parkash and Smt. Ganga Devi w/o Hari Ram as under : That on 8. 6. 1982 at house No. B-5/75, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi, in the area of P. S. Vinay Nagar, Smt. Usha Rani committed suicide. And you all in furtherance of your common intention abetted the commission of that suicide by torture and instigation, and thereby you committed the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and within the jurisdiction of this Court. sd/- A. S. J. New Delhi. ". The reasons for framing the above charge are contained in a separate order dated 4th August, 1983. it has been noticed therein that immediately after her marriage to Bhupinder Kumar, Usha Rani had been complaining to her parents that her husband, her father-in-law and her grand mother-in-law, the petitioners herein were wanting her to commit suicidek so that Bhupinder Kumar her husband might be free to re-marry. Her father in his statement before the police had further stated that Usha Rani was constantly complaining that she was being taunted and humiliated by them. The trial Court has concluded that-

"in this case, I find that there is statement of one Zeenat Begum that Usha Rani had bn complaining to her that her husband and husband s grand mother and father-in-law had always been asking her to die so that Bhupinder may be free to re-marry. Without going into the merits of the proposition laid down in the above authorities which are binding on this court and which proposition cannot be disputed, at this stage, I am only to consider as to whether there is grave suspicion that the accused instigated Usha Rani to commit suicide. I am of the considered opinion that in view of statement of Zeenat Begum coupled with the statement of Ram Gopal and other witnesses, there is sufficient material on record to arrive at a prima facie conclusion that the accused did instigate Usha Rani to commit suicide and Which is sufficient to fiame a charge. Accordingly, I order that the charge against the accused be framed under Section 306 read with Section 34 I. P. O. ". In this petition the above reasons are assailed.

( 3 ) IN the other revision petition (No. 224 of 1983) Rakesh Kumar Bansal arid his mother Smt. Krishna Gupta who have also been arraigned under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code seek quashing of the charge framed against them for having abetted Usha Rani in committing suicide. That charge reads as under :-

"i, B. B. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi hereby charge you Smt. Krishna Gupta w/o S. P. Bansal aged 46 years, service, r/o House No. D-20 Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, and (2) Rakesh Bansal s/o Sh. S. P. Bansal r/o D-20 Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, as under: That on 27. 2. 1982 at about 1. 40 p. m. at House No. D-20 Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, Smt. Usha Bansal committed suicide and you both in furtherance of your common intention abetted its commission and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and within the jurisdiction of this court. "smt. Usha Bansal, wife of petitioner No. 1, and daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 2, had hanged herself in her in-laws house on 27th February, 1982. Admittedly, no one else was present at that time in that house The first information report was lodged by her mother-in-law, petitioner No. 2. The learned trial Court has noticed that Usha Bansal had written two "suicid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document