JUDGMENT The petitioners through this revision petition challenge framing of charges under S. 304-B IPC and in the alternative under S. 306 IPC framed against them by the Add!. Sessions Judge Shajapur. Shri Jaisingh learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there was no material to show that deceased Rekha committed suicide, therefore, the two charges framed could not be sustained and ought to be set aside. Phote-copies of the challan papers show that in the opinion of the panchas the deceased had committed suicide by taking some poisonous substance. Viscera of the deceased was preserved and sent for examination to the Chemical examiner and the report is yet to be received. Statements of witnesses recorded during investigation and letters written by the deceased to her parental relatives show that she was being ill-treated by her husband and his relatives-other co-accused in respect of dowry. There is nothing to show that she suffered from any illness. She was an educated girl and was married only on 7.2.1991 with accused Dinesh. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under S. 228 Cr.P.C. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. State of Bihar v. Rajesh Singh ( AIR 1977 SC 2018 ) relied on. In Stree Atyachar Virodlzi Parishad v. Dilip Nathuma/ Choradia and another ( 1989 (I) SCC 715 ) the Supreme Court has held as under (para 20) :- "We wish to add a word regarding interference by the High Court against a charge framed by the Sessions Court. S. 227 which confers powers to discharge an accused was designed to prevent harassment to an innocent person by the arduous trial or the ordeal of prosecution. How that intention is to be achieved is reasonably clear in the section il<;elf. S. 227 which confers powers to discharge an accused was designed to prevent harassment to an innocent person by the arduous trial or the ordeal of prosecution. How that intention is to be achieved is reasonably clear in the section il<;elf. The power has been entrusted to the Sessions Judge, who brings to bear his knowledge and experience in criminal trials. Besides, he has the assistance of counsel for the accused and Public prosecutor. He is required to hear both sides before framing charge against the accused or for discharging him. If the Sessions Judge after hearing the parties frames a charge and also makes an order in support thereof, the law must be allowed to take its own course. Self restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice which stares the Court in the face. The opinion on any matter may differ depending upon the person who views it. There may be as many as opinions on a particular matter as there are Courts but it is no ground for the High Court to interdict the trial. It would be better for the High Court to allow the trial to proceed. In view of the foregoing, the present revision petition is dismissed without notice to other party.