Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner to challenge the order impugned dated 22.7.2008 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1, Ajmer in sessions case no. 59/2008 whereby the charge for the offence under Sec.306 IPC has been framed against the accused-petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.5.2007, a written report was submitted by Sudhir Goyal to Station House Officer, PS Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer informing him about the death of his sister Anjali who was residing at Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer. It was also stated that after getting the medical examination done, the informant would like to initiate the legal proceedings, if required. Thereafter the complaint was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate , Ist Class No.4, Ajmer on 29.3.2008 by Sudhir Goyal. It was stated therein that on 20.5.2007, brother of Sudhir Goyal i.e. Sudesh Gupta received a telephonic call from his nephew Mohak informing him about the death of his mother Anjali. On receiving this information, complainant informed Superintendent of Police, Ajmer about the death of Anjali and rushed to Ajmer. On 21.5.2007, post mortem of the dead body was conducted and proceeding under Sec.174 Cr.P.C was initiated. Repeated requests were made by the complainant side to take legal action against the culprits. As per visra report no.844/17, it was found that the death of Anjali has taken place on account of consumption of some poisonous substance. It was mentioned in the complaint that the deceased Anjali was administered some insecticides which caused her death.

4. On the basis of this complaint, FIR No.54/2008 was registered at P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer for the offence under Secs. 302, 202, 201 and 120B IPC. After conducting the investigation, charge-sheet for the offence under Sec. 306 IPC was filed against the accused Atul Gupta. Learned Trial court proceeded to frame charge for the aforesaid offence vide order impugned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no sufficient material available to frame charge against the accused-petitioner. He submits that the FIR was delayed by more than ten months. Initially when the proceeding under Sec.174 Cr.P.C was conducted, no allegation of causing death of Anjali was made by the complainant side. Lateron a suspicion was raised by them about the death of Anjali. Counsel further submits that even in the statements recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C, the witnesses have deposed that deceased Anjali used to remain under depression as her husband did not allow her to go to maternal home. This might have been the reason for committing the suicide by Anjali. Learned counsel also contends that this could not be considered the sufficient material to frame charge for the offence under Sec.306 IPC. He further submits that as per the essential ingredients of Sec.306 IPC, abetment by the accused for commission of suicide by the deceased is required to be established. The abetment, as defined under Sec.107 IPC is required to be proved and then only the trial court could have framed the charge for the offence under Sec.306 IPC. Counsel contends that this element is completely lacking in the case in hand. He, therefore, prays that the learned trial court has proceeded to frame the charge without any justification and hence the charge is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on some of the judicial pronouncement, which will be discussed in the later part of the order.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the information about the death of deceased was immediately sent on 21.5.2007 mentioning therein that legal proceedings, if required, will be initiated. Lateron when the complainant side came to know about the suspicious circumstances in