JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.11.94 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Sessions Case No. 118/92, whereby he ordered for framing the charge for the offences under sections 306 & 406 Indian Penal Code against the accused petitioners and on the same day also framed the charge for the said offences. 3. A perusal of the evidence collected by the I.O. in this case including the statements of complainant the father of the deceased Shri Trilok Chand, her mother Smt. Indira Devi and other witnesses namely Moti Lal, Madan Lal, Guljari Lal, Ramavtar and Shyam Sunder disclosed that none of these witnesses has stated that the petitioners have refused to give the share of Kumari Bula, the daughter of the deceased in latter's Stridhan or that they have misappropriated the same. It is true that as per statement of Trilok Chand, minor Ku. Bula is living with her maternal grand father, but this fact itself is not sufficient to presume that the petitioners have criminally misappropriated the Stridhan of the deceased. As per sections 15 & 16 of the Hindu Succession Act the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly upon the sons and daughter and the husband. Petitioner Vinod Kumar being the father of minor Ku. Bala is also her natural guardian. In such circumstances, there is not a whisper of evidence from which it call be reasonably believed that the petitioners have committed an offence under section 406 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the charge for the offence under section 406 Indian Penal Code is groundless against the petitioners and the same can not be sustained. 4. As regards the offence under section 306 Indian Penal Code at this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of Trilok Chand and Indira Devi and other witnesses, who have specifically stated that the petitioners had subjected the deceased to cruelty and maltreated her and thus compelled her to commit suicide. Hence the offence under section 306 Indian Penal Code is prima facie made out and on that count the learned trial Judge has not committed any illegality. 5. Hence the offence under section 306 Indian Penal Code is prima facie made out and on that count the learned trial Judge has not committed any illegality. 5. In the premises of above discussion this revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order as also the charge for the offence under section 406 Indian Penal Code framed against petitioners (1) Sanwarmal, (2) Smt. Mohni & (3) Vinod Kumar is hereby quashed and the petitioner are discharged for the said offences. The rest of the impugned order whereby charge for the offence under section 306 Indian Penal Code has been framed against the petitioners is maintained. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Addl. Sessions judge, Ratangarh for information and necessary action.Petition partly allowed. *******