JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—Heartrending incident occurred on 5th of February, 2003 when deceased Vandana Gautam, married in 1999, committed suicide after killing two of her children. She left a suicide note accusing the petitioners for dragging her to suicide. The suicidal note though does not implicate her husband, father-in-law and sister-in-law but does say that they should not be permitted to touch her body. On the next day her father Hans Raj lodged a complaint pursuant to which a case punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 406 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the present petitioners i.e. husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, father and sister of the husband. Learned trial Judge by his order dated 16th October, 2003 held that all the petitioners are liable to be proceeded against for the aforesaid offences. He observed "I hold that there are sufficient grounds to presume that accused persons have committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 406 read with Section 34 IPC." 2. Dis-satisfied the petitioners are in this petition. 3. Heard. 4. The main thrust of the arguments of Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel is that a bare reading of suicide note shows that the trial Court should have exonerated at least the husband, father-in-law and sister-in-law and discharged them when there is no allegation against them in the suicide note. 5. The First Information Report recorded by Hans Raj, father of the deceased discloses that the deceased was married to accused Harish Kumar in the year 1999 and immediately after the marriage, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, husband and father-in-law started taunting her for having not brought sufficient dowry and that she had come from a poor family. She had been communicating to her parents about the taunts and demands made by the petitioners. Nevertheless the complainant did make certain cash payments of about Rs. 10 to 15 thousands. In September, 2000 twins were born to the deceased and some customary golden ornaments were given on that occasion as also Rs. 60,000 in cash. According to the complainant this did not satisfy the family of the husband and she was continued to be tortured for having not brought sufficient dowry. Certain demands including for Rs. 15 lacs for purchase of a flat at Shimla were made. Being fed up by the torture meeted to her, she started living in the house of her parents. According to the complainant this did not satisfy the family of the husband and she was continued to be tortured for having not brought sufficient dowry. Certain demands including for Rs. 15 lacs for purchase of a flat at Shimla were made. Being fed up by the torture meeted to her, she started living in the house of her parents. In January, 2003 the husband of the deceased visited her parental house and assured the complainant that he would keep her properly and with this assurance brought her back to her matrimonial home. She, according to the prosecution case, repeatedly rang her father and told him that she was being again tortured for the money, for the purchase of flat and to give one of her child to her brother-in-law. Source evidence to this was collected by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which, according to the learned trial Judge, indicated that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. Learned trial Judge by its detailed, order relying upon State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Pandhi, (2003) 2 SCC 711; Stree Aryachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Bathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715, held that at that stage the material on record clearly show reasonable grounds to proceed against the accused. 6. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel vehemently urges that in the face of the suicide note the trial Court should not have considered the evidence, collected by the Investigating Agency post suicide, when in no uncertain words deceased in her suicide note has said that her father-in-law, her husband and her sister-in-law were not responsible for her death. Mr. Sharma also relied upon State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2003) 2 SCC 711 and Satvir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 2001 SC 2828. He stressed that a duty is cast on the Judge to apply his mind to the material on record and if on examination of the record he does not find sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he must discharge him. 7. There can be no exception to the Rule laid down by the Supreme Court. He stressed that a duty is cast on the Judge to apply his mind to the material on record and if on examination of the record he does not find sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he must discharge him. 7. There can be no exception to the Rule laid down by the Supreme Court. A careful reading of the judgments show that the Supreme Court held that in a case, triable by the Court of Sessions, if on consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and on hearing the submissions made by the prosecution and the accused the Judge concludes that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused then he is bound to discharge the accused after recording reasons for doing so. Nevertheless the view which Court has to take must be based on the record and the evidence collected by the prosecution. At that stage it is not given to the Judge to either weigh the evidence or sift the same. As pointed out by the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to lead are not to be meticulously judged. At the stage of framing of a charge even a strong suspicion founded upon materials before a trial Court would be sufficient to frame charge. 8. Looking to the evidence and the material placed by the prosecution before the learned trial Judge it cannot be said that the conclusion reached by the trial Judge to proceed against the petitioners is based on extraneous considerations or dehors the material on record. 9. I see no merit in this petition. Dismissed. -