Judgment ( 1. ) THE applicants have filed this revision against framing of charge by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar vide order dated 16-4-2002 in Sessions trial No. 188/2000 whereby the applicant Nos. 1 to 5 have been charged for the offences under Sections 302, 302/149, 294 and 323 of the Indian Penal code. ( 2. ) IN short, necessary facts for final disposal of this revision are that the non-applicant/complainant Sitaram had filed a criminal complaint against the applicants. The complainant is the son-in-law of applicant Nos. 1 and 3 and brother-in-law of applicant Nos. 2,4 and 5. The complainant was married with sunitabai daughter of the applicant Nos. 1 and 3 and sister of applicant Nos. 4 and 5. He alleged in the complaint that his wife Sunitabai is residing with the applicants and the applicant No. 1 father-in-law was not willing to send her with him. Before six months from the date of her death, i. e. , 25-7-99, he brought her to his house after compromise, and she was residing with him. On the report lodged by Sunitabai against the complainant and one Sunil Khandekar, criminal Case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanawad for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was filed and in the said case, Sunitabai entered into a compromise. She had given statement in his favour. The applicants were not present at that time and date before the said Court because of which, the learned Magistrate ordered for issuance of warrant of arrest. It was further alleged that on 25-7-99, the applicant No. 2 radheshyam came to the house of the non-applicant No. 1/complainant and asked Sunitabai to come with him at the house of the applicants as she was called by father-applicant No. 1. This was refused by Sunitabai. She expressed her desire to live with non-applicant No. 1, therefore, she was filthily abused by applicant No. 2 Radheshyam. He also complained about entering into a compromise and changing her statement in the Court. He also made proposal for second marriage of Sunitabai with some moneyed person. But, this proposal was refuted by Sunitabai on which, he slapt her and tried to take her forcibly. But, because of intervention by villagers who assembled there, he could not take her with him. He also made proposal for second marriage of Sunitabai with some moneyed person. But, this proposal was refuted by Sunitabai on which, he slapt her and tried to take her forcibly. But, because of intervention by villagers who assembled there, he could not take her with him. It is further alleged that Radheshyam had given a small packet to Sunitabai and said that it was a medicine sent by her father with instruction to take it for producing children. After giving the alleged packet of medicine, he also told her that TERE AISE JEENE SE TERA MAR jana ACHCHHA HAL Thereafter, the applicant Radheshyam came on bicycle with non- applicant No. 1/complainant to Mandleshwar. ( 3. ) ON the same date, i. e. , 25-7-99, between 3. 20 and 4. 00 P. M. , the complainant, after leaving his brother-in-law (applicant No. 2 Radheshyam)at Mandleshwar, reached his house at Village Thangaon and found his wife sunitabai sick. He took her to Mandleshwar with the help of one Mangilal khandekar, he got her treated and sent information about her sickness to applicant Nos. 1 and 2. After some time, Sunitabai died in the hospital. It is further alleged by the non-applicant No. 1 that in the hospital, he was filthily abused as well as beaten by kicks and fists by the applicants and he was also falsely implicated for the death of his wife, for the offence under Sections 306, 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4. ) THE complainant alleged in the complaint that the applicants, after hatching conspiracy, committed murder of his wife and also compelled her to commit suicide and also misbehaved and assaulted him. He further averred that on 25-7-99, he lodged oral report at the Police Station, but his report was not written and he was turned out from the Police Station. Again, he lodged a written complaint at the Police Station on 5-8-99, but no action was taken on his complaint and on the contrary, he was arrested and sent to jail. When he was released on bail, he filed the criminal complaint on 15-12-99. ( 5. Again, he lodged a written complaint at the Police Station on 5-8-99, but no action was taken on his complaint and on the contrary, he was arrested and sent to jail. When he was released on bail, he filed the criminal complaint on 15-12-99. ( 5. ) LEARNED Judicial Magistrate First Class after recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the code of Criminal Procedure, issued process against the applicant and after their appearance, committed the case to the Court of Session where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 188/2000. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges by the impugned order dated 16-4-2002 as mentioned above. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants submitted that the non-applicant No. 1/husband Sitaram had lodged a false complaint case against the applicants just to save himself from the case pending against him for the offences under Sections 306 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code regarding unnatural death of his wife. In the said case, these applicants are the complainants and witnesses. On their report, the case has been registered against the non-applicant No. 1/complainant herein. Learned Counsel has filed copy of the First Information Report dated 26-7-99 showing registration of Crime no. 118/99 under Section 304-B/34, IPC against the non-applicant Sitaram, his elder brother Sunil and mother, certified copy of the order dated 13-7-98 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur granting maintenance in favour of the deceased Sunitabai and against non-applicant No. 1/ husband Sitaram, copy of the order dated 3-4-99 passed by the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Mandleshwar in proceedings under Section 97 of the Cr. PC initiated at the instance of the husband Sitaram as well as the certified copy of the statement of Sunitabai showing the fact that she was ill- treated for demand of dowry by non-applicant No. 1, because of which, she was residing with her parents. ( 7. ) LEARNED Dy. Govt. PC initiated at the instance of the husband Sitaram as well as the certified copy of the statement of Sunitabai showing the fact that she was ill- treated for demand of dowry by non-applicant No. 1, because of which, she was residing with her parents. ( 7. ) LEARNED Dy. Govt. Advocate General Shri Desai was present with the case diary of Crime No. 118/99 under Section 304-B/34, IPC and also filed the copy of the statement of the husband/non-applicant No. 1 Sitaram recorded by the Police on 26-7-99 duly signed by him showing the fact that in this statement, he has not levelled any allegation against the applicants about hatching conspiracy for commission of murder or even abatement to commit suicide of deceased Sunitabai. ( 8. ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants placed reliance, for quashing the charge and proceedings against the applicants, on the following judgments :- (1) Dilawar Babu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra (2002 Cr. LJ 980) (2) Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and another, (1996) 9 scc 766 (3) Keshub Mahindra Vs. State of M. P. , (1996) 6 SCC 129 . ( 9. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for framing the charge and proceeding against the applicants and, therefore, the order impugned and the proceedings before the Trial Court are liable to be quashed. Attention of this Court is drawn to certain glaring defects in the case of the complainant. In the complaint, the complainant has stated at page 4 that on the date of death of his wife, he made oral complaint before the Police, but the same was not written and he was turned out from the Police Station, whereas in his statement before the Court under Section 200 of the Cr. PC, in para 9, he has stated that on the date of the incident, he did not lodge any report, because, he was unconscious and thereafter, after 2/3 months, he submitted written complaint to the police, but, no action was taken on the same. In the complaint, he has mentioned that the applicants, after hatching conspiracy, committed murder of his wife and also compelled her to commit suicide. This averment is contrary. This shows that he was not sure whether his wife was murdered or she committed suicide. In the complaint, he has mentioned that the applicants, after hatching conspiracy, committed murder of his wife and also compelled her to commit suicide. This averment is contrary. This shows that he was not sure whether his wife was murdered or she committed suicide. This is a very serious flaw in the complaint of the complainant. Both the offences, i. e. , murder and suicide are quite different. If the complaint is considered as it is, the same is not containing any material which may establish any prima facie case of murder or abatement to commit suicide of deceased Sunitabai by the applicants. In the whole complaint, the only allegation is levelled against the applicant No. 2 Radheshyam about his arrival on 25-7-99 at the house of the complainant and he asked his wife to come alongwith him at her parents house. ( 10. ) THE applicant No. 2 also entered into quarrel with her, abused her and also assaulted her. He also tried to take her forcibly, but because of arrival of the villagers, he could not succeed in it. Thereafter, he had given a packet saying that PITAJI NE YEH DAVAI KI PUDIYA BHEJI HAI, ISE khaa LENA BACHCHE HO JAYENGE KAHKAR MERIPATNIKO EK pudiya DE DI. WOH BOLA KI TEREAISE JEENE SE TERA MAR JANA achchha HAL YEH KAHKAR FARIYADI KE SAATH CYCLE SE mandleshwar AA GAYA. This story appears to be highly unnatural and improbable. Initially, according to the complainant the applicant No. 2 Radheshyam asked her to come with him and on her refusal abused her, assaulted her for changing the statement in the Court and after refusal to go with him, tried to take her forcibly and after this happening, he had given a packet to the deceased Sunitabai. It does not sound well that Sunitabai would have taken such packet and the complainant would have allowed to take the same. There is no facts mentioned in the complaint whether the said packet was containing any substance. There is also nothing mentioned in the complaint that the deceased Sunitabai consumed any substance contained in the said packet. It is also not mentioned in the complaint that Sunitabai made any declaration or statement about her death before anybody. There is no facts mentioned in the complaint whether the said packet was containing any substance. There is also nothing mentioned in the complaint that the deceased Sunitabai consumed any substance contained in the said packet. It is also not mentioned in the complaint that Sunitabai made any declaration or statement about her death before anybody. If the allegations levelled in the complaint are considered as it is, no case of murder of Sunitabai or abating her to commit suicide by the applicants is made out. ( 11. ) THE complainant, in his statement under Section 200 of the cr. PC, Paras 4 and 5 has stated that after beating given to Sunitabai, the applicant No. 2 Radheshyam told her to commit suicide and should not show her face in future. After uttering these words, he handed over a packet saying that this medicine will be able to produce child. This does not appeal to this court that having such kind of incident taken place on that day, the applicant, no. 2 would give such packet openly to the deceased in the presence of her husband and the same will be consumed by her after some time. This clearly shows that after registration of criminal case against the husband/non-ap-plicant No. 1, he concocted a case after three/four months and lodged the; report. This view is also fortified by the statement of the complainant before the police dated 26-7-99 in which he has not levelled any allegation against the applicants. ( 12. ) THE complainant has examined his witnesses under Section 202 of the Cr. PC namely, Mangilal, Sitaram, Sunil, Balram. In short, all these, witnesses have stated that on 25-7-99, applicant No. 2 Radheshyam had come, to the house of the complainant, had quarreled with the deceased, beaten her, and thereafter, handed over one small packet of medicine, saying that the same was sent by her mother and father and after its use, she will be able to produce, the child. The complaint nowhere discloses the presence of these witnesses at. the time of the quarrel. The complainant has also examined witness Gangaram and Panchilal who deposed that after hearing the cries raised by Sunitabai, they reached near her. Sunitabai disclosed that after taking the medicine given by her brother/applicant No. 2 Radheshyam, she was feeling uncomfortable. The complaint nowhere discloses the presence of these witnesses at. the time of the quarrel. The complainant has also examined witness Gangaram and Panchilal who deposed that after hearing the cries raised by Sunitabai, they reached near her. Sunitabai disclosed that after taking the medicine given by her brother/applicant No. 2 Radheshyam, she was feeling uncomfortable. The complainant has examined Station House Officer Yeshwant Pal (P. W. 9)who has stated that against the complainant Sitaram and other persons, offence under Section 304-B/34, IPC was registered as Crime No. 118/99 and the same was under investigation. The complainant submitted a false report before the police just to save himself. Dr. K. C. Mandloi (P. W. 10) has stated that he treated Sunitabai and during the course of treatment she was unconscious. Same is the statement given by Dr. Pradeep (P. W. 11 ). ( 13. ) LEARNED Counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 has not disputed the fact of passing of order by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, rajpur against non-applicant No. 1 Sitaram regarding granting of maintenance to Smt. Sunitabai. He has also not denied about registration of criminal case for the offence under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the complainant, his mother and elder brother and the fact of proceedings under section 97, Cr. PC drawn up by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mandleshwar vide case No. 20/99 in which, the deceased/wife Sunitabai on 3-4-99 given statement against the complainant/husband about ill-treatment for demand of dowry and her living with her parents. She had also expressed desire to go and live with her parents. These proceedings are clearly showing that the relations between the husband and wife were strained. Immediately after her admission in the hospital the complainant did not lodge any report in the Police Station and his contradictory statement about lodging of report after the death of his wife, in his complaint, as well as the Court-statement, as mentioned above and the fact that in the body of the complete complaint, nowhere he has alleged that the deceased/wife consumed the substance available in the packet handed over to her by applicant No. 2 and about her disclosure before the villagers about taking of that substance and only thereafter falling sick. No prima facie case is made out even if the allegations levelled in the complaint are considered in its entirety. ( 14. No prima facie case is made out even if the allegations levelled in the complaint are considered in its entirety. ( 14. ) SUPREME Court in Satish Mehras case (supra) has considered the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr. PC for the purposes of consideration of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and held that at this stage, the Court is not debarred from looking into any material produced by the accused at that stage. In Para 15, it has been held that:-"but when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. Most of the Sessions Courts in India are under heavy pressure of workload. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings. . . . . . " ( 15. ) IN the case in hand, the learned Court below has failed to consider the above-mentioned serious lacuna in the preceding paragraphs as well as the statements of the complainant and his witnesses. The accusation made by the complainant, at a belated stage when he himself is facing the prosecution for the death of his wife, against the applicants who are mother, father and brother, is clearly showing that he concocted a cock and bull story just to save his skin. He has made gradual improvements for making out a case which is evident from the complaint and thereafter, from the statements of his witnesses. In the entire case, there is not an iota of evidence or allegation against the applicant Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 about entering into conspiracy with the applicant No. 2. Utterance of the applicant No. 2 that the packet was sent by mother and father, can not be used against the applicant Nos. 1 and 3 being the statement of co-accused which is not a substantive piece of evidence. In the Court-statement, he has not alleged that the packet was sent by mother and father. ( 16. Utterance of the applicant No. 2 that the packet was sent by mother and father, can not be used against the applicant Nos. 1 and 3 being the statement of co-accused which is not a substantive piece of evidence. In the Court-statement, he has not alleged that the packet was sent by mother and father. ( 16. ) IN the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that allowing the proceedings against the applicants would be nothing, but a sheer harassment to them and a futile exercise at the instance of husband who is facing prosecution for "dowry DEATH". ( 17. ) IN the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order and the whole prosecution is quashed. Criminal Revision allowed.