( 1 ) CHARGED with the offences under Sections 498-A, 304b and 306 IPC, framed vide order dated 27. 8. 2009, by the Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases) Jaipur City, Jaipur, the petitioners have challenged the said charge order before this Court.

( 2 ) IN a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 6. 1. 1998 the complainant, Phool Chand Gupta filed a complaint before the Judicial magistrate No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur against Pawan Kumar, Gordhan, Ku. Veena, Ku. Kamlesh, and Smt. Munni Devi for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 306 read with 120b IPC. The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint for investigation to Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. After a thorough investigation the police submitted a charge sheet against the present petitioners namely, Pawan Kumar, Ku. Veena, and Smt. Munni Devi, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304b and 306 IPC. It did not file any charge sheet against Gordhan and Ku. Kamlesh. The case was committed to the court of Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases) Jaipur City, Jaipur. Vide order dated 6. 6. 2000, the learned Judge discharged the petitioners from the offences under Sections 304b and 306 IPC, but framed a charge under section 498a IPC. Since the case was triable by Magistrate, the case was sent back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Since the complainant was aggrieved by the order dated 6. 6. 2000, he filed a revision petition before this Court, which was registered as S. B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 289/2000. Vide order dated 6. 4. 2009, this court quashed and set aside the order dated 6. 6. 2000 and remanded the case back to the special Judge, and directed the learned Judge to re-frame the charges after hearing both the parties. Consequently, as mentioned above, vide order dated 27. 8. 2009, the learned Judge framed charges against the present petitioners. Hence, this petition before this Court.

( 3 ) MR. Kanta Prasad Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions: firstly, entire story has been cooked up by the complainant. Therefore, the petitioners are being falsely implicated in the case. Secondly, the petitioner No. 1, Pawan Kumar, was married to Asha on 6-12-1994. She stayed in the matrimonial home from 6-12-1994 to 29. 1. 1996. She left her matrimonial home on 29. 1. 1996. Till her death on 30-12-1997, she lived at her parental home. Thus, for the last twenty-three months of her life, she was living in her parental home and not in her matrimonial home. During this period, there was no demand for dowry. Hence, "soon before her death" no cruelty was inflicted upon the deceased with regard to demand for dowry. Hence, an integral ingredient for offence under section 304 B IPC is conspicuously missing. Therefore, the learned Judge is not justified in framing the charge under Section 304 B IPC. Thirdly, in order to frame a charge for an offence under section 306 IPC intentional abatement for commission of suicide has to be made out by the prosecution. According to statement of the driver and the conductor of the bus from which Asha allegedly jumped out and committed suicide, there is no evidence to show that she jumped out of a running bus and committed suicide. Therefore, it cannot be said that her death was suicidal in nature. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the petitioners compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are missing. Hence, the learned Judge is unjustified in framing the charge under Section 306 IPC. Lastly, before a charge can be framed, the learned trial court should be convinced that eventually the trial would lead to conviction and not to acquittal. Because of the weakness in the case of prosecution, it is highly unlikely that petitioners would be convicted for the offences under Sections 304 B and 306 IPC. Therefore, the charge under Section 304 B and 306 should be quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) ON the other hand