Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-The petitioners have filed this petition impugning the order dated August 6,1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, whereby the charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 and 406, IPC have been framed against the petitioners. 2. Few facts are required to be set out at the outset in order to resolve the controversy posed before me. Deceased Savita Gupta was married to petitioner in 1992. It was in August, 1995 she had gone to her parents. After her stay with her parents for about three months, suddenly on November 8, 1995 her dead body was found in small water tank located at the ground floor of her parents’ house in mysterious circumstances. Dead body of her young daughter was also found in the same tank. Deceased Savita Gupta was reported missing by her brother on November 8, 1995 at 8.00 p.m. at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar. Second report was submitted at 2.30 a.m. on November 9,1995 by Anil Kumar, wherein inter alia it was stated that Smt. Savita Gupta committed suicide alongwith her child by jumping into Water Tank. The Police Station Kotwali registered FIR No. 583 of 1995 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 406, IPC, against the petitioners. All the petitioners were taken into custody and thereafter released on bail. Investigation commenced and the police filed charge sheet for offences under Sections 306,406 and 498-A, IPC against the petitioners in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, who vide its order dated January 6,1997 committed them to the Court of Sessions. Eventually the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, who vide its order dated August 6,1997 framed charge against the petitioners as under: Pramod Kumar - Under Section. 306,406, 304-B and 498-A, IPC. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Abha Devi - Under Section. 304-B, 306 and 498-A, IPC. 3. I havebestowed my anxious considerations to the arguments canvassed before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the record. .4. Beforeproceeding further, it will be useful at this-juncture to analyse the legal position. 306,406, 304-B and 498-A, IPC. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Abha Devi - Under Section. 304-B, 306 and 498-A, IPC. 3. I havebestowed my anxious considerations to the arguments canvassed before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the record. .4. Beforeproceeding further, it will be useful at this-juncture to analyse the legal position. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Maharaj Sharan, AIR 1997 SC 2041 = 1 (1997) CCR 250 (SC), propounded thus: .“At the stage of framing of the charge, the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.” .5. In State of Maharashtra vs. SomNath Thapa, 1996 Cr. L.R. (SC) 690, their Lordships of the Supreme Court .propounded thus: “32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into, the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.” 6. Now I proceed to examine as to what is the material brought on record by the prosecution against the accused petitioners. The prosecution has filed three letters of the deceased as well as the statements of the various witnesses recorded under Section 161, CrPC including Smt. Karuna, Pushpa Devi, Tara Devi, Manohari Devi, Shanti Bai, Sadhu Ram and Bodu Rain; The allegations of alleged illicit relations against the petitioner Pramod Kumar and his Bhabhi Smt. Abha Gupta have been levelled in the alleged letters of Smt. Savita Gupta. But I do not want to make any comments at this stage in .respect of the said allegations. But I do not want to make any comments at this stage in .respect of the said allegations. The cursory look at the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. implication of petitioner Pramod Kumar and Smt. Abha Devi is exfacie made out and it is not necessary to make any roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence. I have to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming in respect of commission of offences by the petitioners. I have to examine the material brought on record by the prosecution and probative value of the said material cannot be gone into by me. 7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.R. Bajwa, has drawn my attention towards the case of Bhanwar Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 1988 RCC 546, and strenuously canvassed that no charge against Pradeep Kumar and Abha Devi is made out from the material on record. Learned Counsel however, does not press petition on behalf of Pramod Kumar at this stage. I subscribe the view of learned Counsel so far it relates to petitioner Pradeep Kumar is concerned, as from the statements of the witnesses there is nothing against the petitioner Pradeep Kumar so as to implicate him for the offences for which charge h as been framed against him but so far as petitioner Smt. Abha Devi is concerned, there is sufficient material against her and I am of the view that charge against Pramod Kumar and Smt. Abha Devi have been rightly framed by the Court below. Consequently, allow the petition of Pradeep Kumar Gupta and quash the order of the learned Court below so far as it relates to Pradeep Kumar Gupta. He is discharged from the offences under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A, IPC, and his bail bonds stand cancelled. The petition of Pramod Kumar and Smt. Abha Devi fails and is hereby dismissed