Honble SAXENA, J. —This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 14.11.91 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions case No.63/90 "State Vs. Baga Ram and Ors.", whereby he framed charges against the petitioner for the offences u/ss.302, 307,364,367 read with sec.120-B IPC. (2). Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that on 26.7.90, petitioners husband, co-accused Heera Chand (Now expired) lodged a first Information Report at Police Station, Rani alleging that on 25-7-90, at his shop, he received information that his house was lying open and that his four daughters viz; Mamta, Pinky, Baby and Poonam had disappeared. He further alleged that despite search, his daughters could not be traced out. He therefore, requested the police to make a search for his missing girls. It appears that on the same day i.e. 26.7.90 at about 8 p.m., Dy. Superintendent of Police Bali received information that some unknown person had kidnapped those girls to commit some offence. Thereupon, crime No.59/90 was registered for the offences u/ss.363, 365 and 366 IPC at police station, Rani. On 27.7.90, a radiogram message was received from Gujrat Police that four girls residents of village Rani have been admitted in the hospital by S.H.O., P.S., Amirgarh (Gujrat). Thereupon, the S.H.O., P.S., Rani went to Civil Hospital, Ahemedabad, where the missing three girls namely Poonam, Pinky, and Baby, aged 11,14 and 13 years respectively, who had received injuries, were admitted as indoor patients. However, the fourth girl Kumari Mamta aged fifteen years had succumbed to, her injuries. A case u/ss. 307 and 302 I.P.C. was registered at police station, Amirgarh. After consultation with the higher authorities, it was considered proper that since initially the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of Police Station Rani, all papers regarding the investigation conducted by the Gujrat Police including the site inspection, recovery of blood stained earth and articles lying on the spot, of Panchyat Namas, post mortem examination reports etc. be handed-over to the S.H.O., P.S.,Rani. During the course of investigation, it transpired that petitioner Smt. Yashoda Bai, who is the mother of aforementioned girls had illicit relation with one Vidhya Sagar and that co-accused Heera Chand, father of those girls also knew about her illicit relations. be handed-over to the S.H.O., P.S.,Rani. During the course of investigation, it transpired that petitioner Smt. Yashoda Bai, who is the mother of aforementioned girls had illicit relation with one Vidhya Sagar and that co-accused Heera Chand, father of those girls also knew about her illicit relations. It further transpired that co-accused Heera Chand was sexually weak, that he also believed that those four girls were not begotten by him; that he did not want to bear their marriage expenses, and therefore, he wanted to eliminate them. From the investigation, it further transpired that the petitioner alongwith her husband Heera Chand entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Vaga Ram and Ogad Ram Kumhar to commit the murder of aforementioned four girls and that in pursuance of the said conspiracy on 25.7.90, Heera Chand asked his daughters to take leave from their respective schools and to accompany his friend co-accused Vaga Ram to visit Parshu Ram Mahadev, a pilgrim, situated on the hills in Gujrat State. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.7.90, co- accused Vaga Ram and Ogad Ram entrained alongwith those girls from Rani Railway Station, reached Abu Road and thereafter hired a jeep for going to Parhu Ram Mahadev. It is further the case of the prosecution that Heera Chand who was running a medical store, had given valieum tablets to Vaga Ram and instructed his daughters that since journey to Parshu Ram Mahadev on the hills was arduous, they should take those tablets so that they may not feel tired. It is further the case of the prosecution that in the night of 25.7.90, co-accused Vaga Ram and Ogad Ram, who were allegedly hired by Heera Chand and that the petitioner for an amount of Rs.40,000/-,gave the said tablets to those girls, who felt giddiness and fell down. It is alleged that thereupon Vaga Ram and Ogad Ram committed the murder of Mamta aged about 15 years on the hill and also caused grievous injuries to other three sisters by inflicting stone blows and that on the next day morning, some villagers noticed those girls lying injured, informed the police and thereupon they were taken to the hospital. (3). After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against petitioner, Heera Chand, Vaga Ram and Ogad Ram in the court of the Magistrate, who committed the case to the learned Addl. (3). After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against petitioner, Heera Chand, Vaga Ram and Ogad Ram in the court of the Magistrate, who committed the case to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali. (4). During trial, co-accused Heera Chand expired and prosecution against his has been dropped. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide his order dt.14.11.91 felt that there was strong suspicion against the petitioner regarding her complicity in the crime and accordingly framed charges against her for the aforementioned offences. Hence this revision petition. (5). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutors appearing for the State at length and carefully perated us record of the lower court in extenso. (6). Mr. M.M.Singhvi has strenuously contended that there is not a shred of legal evidence against the petitioner,that from the evidence collected by the I.O., it cannot be reasonably believed that petitioner had entered into a criminal conspiracy alongwith her husband Heera Chand to get her four daughters murdered by hiring co-accused Vaga Ram and Ogad Ram. According to him, the petitioner had admittedly gone to Sumerpur on the day of the alleged incident; that the alleged kidnapping of her daughters had taken place in her absence and that even if Police statement of Vidhya Sagar is taken to be true on its face value still then he had illicit relations with the petitioner only one and half years prior to the alleged incident and in such circumstances, there was no occasion for her husband co-accused Heera Chand to believe that those daughters were not born out of his sperms and were the illicit issues of Vidhya Sagar. Mr. Singhvi has stressed that it is against human conduct that a mother will get her daughters murdered. He has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge without application of his judicial mind, on the basis of surmises and conjectures, has committed an illegality in holding that there was strong suspicion against the petitioner and in framing the impugned charge against her in a mechanical manner. He has asserted that there is not even a remote possiblity for conviction of the petitioner on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O., which is wholly inadequate and insufficient even for making out a prima facie case against her and, as such,the impugned charge be quashed. (7). He has asserted that there is not even a remote possiblity for conviction of the petitioner on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O., which is wholly inadequate and insufficient even for making out a prima facie case against her and, as such,the impugned charge be quashed. (7). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutors have stressed that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to take into account the general consideration of the material placed before it by the I.O. and that the standard test, proof and judgment, which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly the same to be applied at the stage of secs.227 and 228 Cr.P.C. They have contended that even a very strong suspicion founded upon material, which leads the court to form presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence and that at such a stage, meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by the court is not required. They have placed reliance on Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others (1) Radhey Shyam Vs. Kunj Behari and othersand (2). The learned P.Ps. have also reiterated the reasonings given by the trial Judge. (8). I have bestowed my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. It is true that at the stage of framing of charge, meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by the court is not required. It is also true that the standard test,proof and judgment which is to be applied after trial for finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly the same to be applied at the time of framing of charge. If, on a general consideration of the evidence collected by the I.O. and taking such evidence to be true on its face value, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed a certain offence then the Sessions Judge is justified to frame the charge for such an offence but the court has to apply its judicial mind for forming a presumptive opinion as to existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged. For this limited purpose, the court has the undoubted power to sift the evidence for finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused is made out on the basis of the material collected during investigation. The order framing charge does substantially affect the persons liberty and it cannot be said that the court must automatically frame the charge against the prosecuting authorities blindly relying on the documents referred to in section 173 Cr.P.C. The responsibility of framing the charge is that of the court and it has to judicially consider the question of doing so without fully adverting to the material on record. The court must not blindly adopt the decision of the prosecution. (9). The test to frame a prima facie case naturally depends upon the facts of each case. Where the material placed before the court creates grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be justified in framing a charge, but if from the general consideration of the evidence collected by the I.O., material ingredients of an offence are not made out and the evidence against the accused, is wholly inadequate and insufficient then the court has the statutory duty to discharge the accused under section 227 Cr.P.C. after recording his reasons for so doing. (10). In the case on hand, the basic facts proposed by the prosecution to be proved on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. against the petitioner and relied upon by the learned trial Judge are as under: — "That Madanlal, neighbour of petitioner, in his police statement dt. 1.8.90 stated that on 15.7.90, he had gone to the medical store of co-accused Hira Chand for getting some medicines and that at that time , he had seen co-accused Hira Chand,petitioner Smt. Yashoda Bai and one person known as Masterji talking with each other; that the petitioner with her folded hands was requesting the said Masterji to execute their work and assuring that after completion of the work he would be amply rewarded. Madanlal identified co-accused Vaga Ram during identification parade as the person who was known as Masterji and was present in Hirachands shop on that day. Madanlal identified co-accused Vaga Ram during identification parade as the person who was known as Masterji and was present in Hirachands shop on that day. However, Madanlal did not give any details of the conversation about the work assigned to him and the reward.It may be mentioned here that Madanlal was earlier examined by the I.O. on 27.7.90 u/s.161 Cr.P.C. wherein he had stated that after the disappearance of four daughters of Hirachand, he alongwith other persons made a search for them and that he suspected that those girls had been kidnapped by some culprits without the consent of their parents. He had also specifically stated that petitioner Smt.Yashoda was not present in Rani on that day and had gone to Sumerpur and that her daughters had been kidnapped in her absence. Therefore, even if Madanlals both statements which are contradictory with each other,are taken to be true still then it cannot be reasonably believed or presumed that the petitioner had entered into a criminal conspiracy to get her daughters murdered. (11). In State of Karnataka Vs. L.Muniswami and others (3), the respondents were not present on the scene of the occurrence and there was allegation of their frequent meeting with the principal accused, who had assaulted the complainant after his dismissal from service and committed the offence u/ss.324,326 and 307 IPC. There was no evidence as to why they met, what they said and whether they had any deliberation at all with the principal accused. It was held that in such circumstances, it would be a sheer waste of public time and money to permit the proceedings to continue against the respondents and that the material on which the prosecution proposed to rely against them was wholly inadequate to sustain the charge that they were in any manner connected with the assault on the complainant. The Apex Court also held that the High Court is entitled to quash the proceeding invoking its inherent powers, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be the abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice so require. The saving of the High Courts inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose, which is that a court proceeding should not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment of persecution. The saving of the High Courts inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose, which is that a court proceeding should not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment of persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice. Therefore, even if Madanlals police statements dt.27.7.90 and 1.8.90 are taken to be true on their face value, still then prima facie, no offence of entering into a criminal conspiracy u/s.l20-B IPC is made out against the petitioner. (12). Another factor relied upon by the learned trial Judge is that Kumari Poonam in her police statement stated that when her parents came to the hospital to see her and her sisters, they did not ask anything from her about the incident. But her sisters Pinky and Baby have not stated likewise in their police statements. Therefore, this is hardly a circumstance for inferring/presuming that the petitioner had entered into a criminal conspiracy for committing the murder of her daughters. (13). The learned trial Judge has relied on the police statement of Kumari Baby aged 13 years, wherein she has stated that on the ill fated night co-accused Vaga Ram and Ogad Ram, while inflicting injuries to her, had told that her father and mother had hired them for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- for committing the murders of their four daughters. But again Kumari Poonam and Pinky have not uttered a single word in their police statements on this count. Moreover, the alleged statements of co-accused Vaga Ram and Ogad Ram alleged to have been made before Kumari Baby are legally not admissible in evidence and cannot be read against the petitioner. The learned trial Judge has conveniently ignored this inherent infirmity in the statement of Kumari Baby and wrongly held that it was a grave suspicious circumstance against the petitioner. (14). The learned trial Judge has conveniently ignored this inherent infirmity in the statement of Kumari Baby and wrongly held that it was a grave suspicious circumstance against the petitioner. (14). Another circumstance relied upon by the trial Judge is that Vidhya Sagar aged 39 years, in his police statement admitted that he had developed illicit relations with the petitioner about on and a half years prior to the alleged incident; that he used to love her and that Kumari Poonam has also stated that Vidhya Sagar used to come to her house in absence of her father Hira Chand. But from the statements of Vidhya Sagar and Kumari Baby, it cannot be inferred by any stretch of imagination that those girls were off springs of the illicit relations of the petitioner and Vidhya Sagar and for that, Hirachand wanted to get rid of or eliminate his daughters. Moreover, this circumstance also does not indicate that the petitioner had entered into a criminal conspiracy with her husband Hira Chand to get her four daughters murdered by hiring co-accused Vaga Ram and Ogad Ram. (15). The learned trial Judge has also relied on the police statements of Khurshid and Narainlal, who have stated that Hira Chand wanted to get rid of her daughters, but their statements even if taken to be true on their face value, do not implicate the petitioner for the alleged criminal conspiracy. (16). Another circumstance relied upon by the trial Judge is that two post cards alleged to have been written by co-accused Vaga Ram, were recovered from the shop of Hira Chand; that contents thereof disclose that some secret parleys were going on between Hira Chand and Vaga Ram; that Heera Chand wanted to amass wealth and also to have control over his wife Smt. Yashoda through some witch craft. The trial Judge was of the opinion that it appeared that all those activities must have been connected with the alleged incident. A careful perusal of the contents of those post cards unmistakably reveals that there was no complicity of the petitioner with her husband and, as such, it is not at all a circumstance connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence of entering into a criminal conspiraof.. (17). There is no other evidence collected by the I.O. against the petitioner. A careful perusal of the contents of those post cards unmistakably reveals that there was no complicity of the petitioner with her husband and, as such, it is not at all a circumstance connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence of entering into a criminal conspiraof.. (17). There is no other evidence collected by the I.O. against the petitioner. Thus, there is not a fringe of evidence, either direct or circumstantial, against the petitioner from which it can be reasonably inferred or presumed that she had entered into a criminal conspiraof with her husband Hira Chand and co-accused Vaga Ram and Ogad Ram for getting her four daughters murdered. Moreover, it is against the natural human conduct that a mother would conspire to get her four teen aged daughters murdered by hiring persons. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present in village Rani on the day of the alleged incident and that her daughters were kidnapped in her absence as is evident from the statements of Madanlal and Pinky. Even in the FIR, petitioners name does not find mention. In such circumstances, it is abundantly apparent that the learned trial Judge has not at all applied his judicial mind in considering the evidence collected by the I.O.. He has, thus, committed a patent illegality in holding that there was grave suspicion against the petitioner to believe that she had entered into a criminal conspiracy for getting her daughters murdered and in mechanically framing charge for the offences u/ss. 302, 304, 364 and 367 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC against her. In my considered opinion, even if the evidence collected by the I.O. against the petitioner is taken to be true on its face value, still then prima facie no case for the offence u/ss. 302, 307, 364, 367 r/w 120-B IPC is made out against the petitioner and, as such, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against her. Therefore, the impugned order framing the charge against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and that to secure the ends of justice, it is essential to quash the same. (18). The net result of the above discussion is that this petition is allowed and the charge framed against the petitioner for the offence u/ss. 302, 307, 364 and 367 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC vide order dated 14.11.91 passed by the learned Addl. (18). The net result of the above discussion is that this petition is allowed and the charge framed against the petitioner for the offence u/ss. 302, 307, 364 and 367 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC vide order dated 14.11.91 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali is hereby quashed. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.