At the stage of framing of charge, the concerned Court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused may be made out, and a detailed analysis and appreciation of the evidence is not required at this stage.

ORDER

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Criminal Revision Petition may kindly be allowed, order passed by Learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Sirohi, dated 05.09.2018 for framing charges against the accused petitioner for offence punishable u/s 306 I.P.C. may kindly be quashed and set-aside and accused petitioner may kindly be discharged from the offence u/s 306 I.P.C."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that on 08.02.2018, respondent no.2/complainant submitted a written report before the S.H.O., Police Station, Sheoganj (Arinpur), Sirohi and alleged therein that his brother (deceased Puran Chitara) died by suicide on 07.02.2018 due to abetment by one Shiv Dayal Soni. That his brother (deceased Puran Chitara) wrote a suicide note on Whatsapp, and also made a will with respect to his property. The respondent no.2/complainant further stated that the deceased died by suicide due to an affair between his wife Smt. Lata (present petitioner) and Shiv Dayal Soni.

2.1 On the basis of the said report, an F.I.R. bearing no. 0036/2018 was registered before Police Station, Sheoganj (Arinpur), Sirohi for the offences under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015); upon investigation, a charge-sheet for offence under Section 306 IPC was filed against the present petitioner by the concerned police authorities; on the basis of which, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Cases, Sirohi framed the charge for the offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 05.09.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of framing of the charge against the petitioner herein, deserves to be quashed and set aside, as the learned Court below failed to appreciate the fact that no specific allegation in the impugned F.I.R. nor in the suicide note of the deceased-Puran Chitara, was levelled against the present petitioner, and that the present petitioner is the wife of the deceased-Puran Chitara and their relations were cordial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that no allegation of abetment to commit suicide was levelled against the present petitioner is there in the suicide note, and the will created by the deceased-Puran Chitara clearly stated harmonious and cordial relations between the present petitioner and her husband (deceased Puran Chitara). Therefore, as per the learned counsel, the impugned order passed by learned Court below is unsustainable in the eye of law.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complanaint, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioner, submit that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that as per the settled legal proposition, at the stage of framing of charge, what is required of the concerned Court is to consider whether any prima facie any case is found to be made out or not. A detailed analysis and appreciation of the evidence is not required at this stage.

7. This Court further observes that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned Trial Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors (2012) 1 SCC 680 and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290.

8. This Court thus observes that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned Trial Court is only required to prima facie