1. One Suresh Kumari daughter of Amar Nath was married to respondent no.2-accused. For the last 5 years she remained issueless as a result of which her mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law who are respondents/ accused respectively used to taunt her with an intention to drive her from the house or to compel to dissolve the marriage with respondent no.2. On 09.09.1997 also she was nagged by the accused as a result of which she drenched herself with kerosene oil and committed suicide. Concerned police station registered a case against the respondents under section 306 R. P. C. and after the investigations found the accused guilty of offence under section 306 R. P. C. The case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Kathua for trial. Sessions Judge, Kathua, discharged all the accused person from the charge levelled against them and charge was not framed against any of the respondents. Learned Sessions Judge, Kathua in his judgment held: -

"On the reading of this section the presumption as to abetment of suicide is drawable against husband of such a woman who committed suicide or relation of the husband if there is material on the file to indicate that the husband or a relation of husband having subjected such a woman to cruelty of any kind as defined under section 498-A of R. P. C. before her death. There must be reasonable nexus between the cruelty and the suicide and the cruelty must be such as is likely to drew a women to suicide. As indicated that from the statement of witnesses there is nothing to show that besides taunting and nagging Suresh Kumari deceased for being un-productive and unfortunate for their family, never ill-treated or harassed her This behaviour on the part of the accused towards the deceased cannot be taken as cruelty™ as contemplated u/s 498-A which means a wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or Danger to her life, limb or health or harassment with a view to coerce her relative to meet unlawful demand of any property. As a result of which no presumption is drawable in the case in hand against the accused that they abetted Suresh Kumari deceased (the wife of the accused no.2) to commit suicide)."

2. The above order was passed by the Sessions Judge, Kathua, on 18.04.1998 which is assailed before this court by way of criminal revision petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Cases relied on by them are as follows: -

1) Bansiya and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan™, 1995 (3) Crimes, 75.

2) ˜Dhanna Ram and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 (3) Crimes, 108.

3) Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration and another, 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Vol. IX) 766.

4) Protima Dutta vs. State™, 1977 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 96 (CAL).

5) Gurcharan Singh and another Vs. Sat Pal Singh, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 209.

3. Before addressing myself to the argument advanced and the point involved, I have not to ignore that the case was disposed of at the stage of charge. Scope of the trial Judge is very limited at this stage to exercise the power for discharging the accused. At this stage it is only to be seen whether the case is made out for charge prima facie or not.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has rightly relied on (1996) 9 SCC 766, State vs. Sheela Devi and others paragraph 15 is relevant. The Apex Court has rightly observed that the Sessions Judge is always busy with huge work. He should not hesitate to discharge the accused if he believes that even if the prosecution evidence under section 161 and the material produced by the police does not make out any case and in the long run and there is no probability for any conviction of the accused. Now simple point here is whether there is evidence on record under section 161 C. P. C. which could justify the discharge. There are the statements of prosecution witnesses, father, mother and brother-in-law of the deceased on the record to show that the respondents-accused persons were always taunting, nagging, and hara