JUDGMENT

Raj Beer Singh, J.

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 16.08.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (1st), Court No.16 Gautam Buddha Nagar in Special Trial No. 559 of 2018 (State v. Dharmendra and others), Crime No. 202 of 2018, under Sections 306 , 354, 506 IPC and Section 7 /8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Sector-24 Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, whereby the application of revisionist-accused for discharge has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the revisionist has abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide and thus, no case under Section 306 IPC is made out against the revisionist. The revisionist was working as Principal of the Alckon Public School, Mayur Vihar Phase-3, Delhi and the allegation regarding misbehaviour with deceased girl, were levelled against co-accused Rajiv Sahgal and Niraj Anand, who were working as teacher in the said school. The mere allegation against the revisionist is that when the informant made a complaint against the said teachers to the revisionist, he has threatened him to cut off the name of deceased from the school. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC are not made out against the revisionist. The trial Court did not consider the grounds taken in the discharge application and that the said application was rejected in an arbitrary manner and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the case of Geo Varghese v. State of Rajashtan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2021) decided by the Supreme Court on 05.10.2021.

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the revision and argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The trial Court has considered the entire facts and rejected the discharge application of revisionist by a reasoned order. It was submitted that the criminal revision filed by co-accused Niraj Anand against the rejection of her discharge application, has already been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2023, passed in Criminal Revision No. 3443 of 2022. It was submitted that the allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, discloses a prima facie case against the revisionist. At this stage matter cannot be examined meticulously and only it is to be seen whether a prima facie case is made out or not. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5. I have considered rival submissions and perused record.

6. In case of Geo Varghese v. State of Rajashtan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2021), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is