A. R. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Jugraj Jani, charged under section 302 I. P. C. for murdering Balkishan, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Cr. P. C. for discharge/quashment of the proceedings on the linchpin that there is no material as such justifying trial and continuance of criminal proceedings. ( 2 ) FACTS in brief, leading to the challan and eventual charge, are that on 5. 2. 1991, the applicant and others had gathered in the club of the Cement Factory Nayagogan for certain games like Carrom and Cards. The deceased is alleged to have arrived there in the mood of creating scene and insisting on participation, despite being drunk. It is said that in an effort to combat the unruly conduct, the deceased had to be seen off. The episode, trivial in nature, ended there. Later, the dead body of the deceased was found. A case of suspicious death was registered. Finally, the applicant was implicated mainly due to earlier incident as noted above. The evidence is thus of last seen together. There is admittedly no other link in the case - In Sessions Trial No. 214/92 (State v. Jugraj), pending on the file of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch the applicant-accused stands charged above and is consigned to face the ordeal of trial. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri P. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri G. Desai, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State. ( 4 ) IT is trite position of law that no one should be lightly lugged into prosecution and that there should be really triable issue, before the Court. It has to be seen that uncontroverted allegations, as made, prima facie established the offence. Sessions Trial is a serious proceedings. It is precisely for this reason that Section 226 of the Cr. P. C. provided as under: 1) The prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused. 2) The prosecutor shall state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. ( 5 ) THE judge is required to consider the charge and proposed evidence, and on due application of mind, has to decide about section 227 or Section 228 of the Cr. 2) The prosecutor shall state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. ( 5 ) THE judge is required to consider the charge and proposed evidence, and on due application of mind, has to decide about section 227 or Section 228 of the Cr. P. C. The charge can be framed only when the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable by him. On the other hand, he is under obligation to order discharge. Section 227 reads as under: p227 - Discharge - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 5. Shri Saxena has strenuously submitted that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant and as such the proceedings, subvertible on the face of it, deserve to be anaesthetized. ( 6 ) SHRI Saxena placed reliance on Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others1, wherein it is held that:the legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of me Court chances at an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. ( 7 ) SHRI Desai, on the other hand, supported the charge and placing reliance on Radheshyam v. Kunj Behari and Ors. ( 7 ) SHRI Desai, on the other hand, supported the charge and placing reliance on Radheshyam v. Kunj Behari and Ors. and State of Rajasthan v. Kunj Behari alias Kunji and others, urged that meticulous examination of evidence was not desirable at this stage. ( 8 ) TRUE it is that meticulous Consideration of evidence and other material, as proposed, is not required at the stage of framing of the charge. Yet this would not mean that charge can be framed mechanically and trial otherwise avoidable must be held. The aforesaid case of Radheshyam (supra) turned on its own peculiar facts In that the investigation of that case had to be handed over to the cm because of unsatisfactory investigation by the Police Station. It was in the face of such a situation that the quashment was disapproved as its being based on the premature assessment of thy evidence. ( 9 ) IN the case on hand, the position is entirely different. The medical evidence, despite repeated queries, failed to demonstrate that the death was homicidal. The opinion yields no tenebrosity and is emphatic to the effect that no definite opinion can be given. The other evidence too did jot improve the position. Even the question of Tlast seen together is wholly insufficient and inconsequential because there were several other persons in the club attempting to resist and repeal the impeachable conduct of the deceased. ( 10 ) IT is aptly said that fouler the crime, higher the proof. The Dy. Government Advocate, faced with the poor quality of the case, could. not urge seriously in favour of the charge and finally said that evidence, even if accepted without a demur, did not go beyond the realm of suspicion. It is pertinent to refer to Chandra Kant Ganpat v. State of Maharashtra, which has laid down that: It is well settled that no one can be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion, though strong it may be. It also cannot be disputed that when we take into account the conduct of an accused, his conduct must be looked at its entirety. ( 11 ) IN Santosh Kumar v. State of M. P. , it is held that However, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. It also cannot be disputed that when we take into account the conduct of an accused, his conduct must be looked at its entirety. ( 11 ) IN Santosh Kumar v. State of M. P. , it is held that However, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. do no spell out anything incriminating against the applicant, directly or indirectly, and in the absence of direct evidence, on the basis of strong surrounding circumstances the accused may be tried for the offence alleged, but in the case in hand, considering the material so far produced by the prosecution, except strong suspicion, there is no strong surrounding circumstances. Strong suspicion, howsoever grave may be, cannot take the place of evidence and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by conducting the trial against the applicant under Section 302 I. P. C. As held in State of Karnataka's case, the Sessions Court possesses comparatively wider discretion in terms of Section 227 Cr. P. C. ( 12 ) THE Statements recorded in this case do not spell out any such situation, which may furnish ground for trial. It clearly emerges from the material that i) oral evidence, as proposed, is not of definite character; ii) Medical evidence, as procured, is not conclusive and lends no corroboration to the accusation. The case thus rests on the fulcrum of suspicion and as seen protracted trial on such evidence would be abuse of the process of the Court. It is noticed as under ( 13 ) THE prosecution story, redolent of doubt, is fraught with surmises and conjectures. There is no satisfactory proof about mode of death in the first place in that there is no material to show that it was homicidal. And there is no material as regards authorship either. It is neither proper nor desirable to put the applicant to a long lasting trial on such an insufficient and slender evidence. The case is thus apparently vexatious. Such trials cannot be judicially sanctioned and need to be anaesthetized. In Jugal Kishore v. State of M. P. , this Court took the view that the Court is under a legal obligation to use extra ordinary powers to quash the proceedings and save the accused from harassment inherent in trial in which chances of conviction are not only bleak but nil. In Jugal Kishore v. State of M. P. , this Court took the view that the Court is under a legal obligation to use extra ordinary powers to quash the proceedings and save the accused from harassment inherent in trial in which chances of conviction are not only bleak but nil. ( 14 ) APPLYING the aforesaid test and bestowing careful attention to the entire material as available in the case, I hold that there is no material to presume that the applicant has committed the offence with which he was charged and that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant. ( 15 ) IN the ultimate analysis, I find that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. ( 16 ) AS a result of the discussion aforesaid this petition is allowed. The order framing the charge is set aside and the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 214/92, pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch are also quashed. The applicant is discharged. He is on bail his bail bonds shall stand discharged. Petition allowed. .