ORDER :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the impugned order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) cases, Jodhpur in Session Case No. 131/2017 titled as State V/S Raja Ram & ors. may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be discharge from all the charges leveled against her.”

3. The brief facts of this case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the brother of petitioner’s late husband, Mr. Pappu Ram, Mr. Jagdish Meghwal lodged an F.I.R. before the Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur alleging that the petitioner is liable in abetting the suicide of her late husband, by causing him grave mental stress by having an extra marital affair with one Mr. Raju Prajapat. And that, an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner accused under Sections 306 and 201 and the co accused, Raju Prajapat under Sections 458, 323 and 306 of the IPC and under Section 3(2) (V) (a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, and that subsequently the learned Court below framed charges against the petitioner accused for offences under Sections 306 and 201 of the IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conditions prescribed under the provisions of law contained in Sections 306 and 201 IPC are not fulfilled in the present case, and therefore the petitioner cannot be charged under the same, that neither has the petitioner caused disappearance of any evidence pertaining to the case in question, nor giving false or incorrect information regarding the offence/s in the case in question.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the single piece of evidence relied upon by prosecution is the testimony of witnesses, to the effect that the following statement made by the deceased – victim, husband of the petitioner, was supposedly recorded by the witnesses on a mobile phone, but which found no mention in the F.I.R. so registered against the accused petitioner. And that there is also no mention of any harassment or inducement, by the accused petitioner, to the deceased – victim to commit suicide.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the impugned order, dated 16.3.2018, passed by the learned Court below has passed a reasoned order, and rightly relied upon multiple judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in holding that, at the time of framing charge, a mere consideration has to be made whether a prima facie against the accused exits and that a meticulous appreciation of evidence at this stage would not be required.

For ready reference, sections 201 and 306 of the IPC are reproduced below:-

“201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—

Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false,

if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

if punishable with imprisonment for life.—and if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if