JUDGMENT :- By the present application, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 3011-2004 below application at Exh.14 in Sessions Case No.153 of 2004 framing charge against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The first information report in Crime No.13 of 2004 was lodged on the basis of complaint of Sahebrao Dattu Mahajan for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 302, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his niece Suyama. In the investigation the statement of the present petitioner came to be recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 19-3-2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raver. 3. The petitioner was working as an employee with accused Nos. 1 , 3 and 5. The first information report came to be registered on the basis of complaint of uncle of Suyama that she was ill-treated on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is the allegation of the prosecution that on the date of incident i.e. on 11-3-2004 at about 12 to 12.15 p.m. in the field of Laxman Lahanu Choudhari, the accused Pramod alongwith his wife Suyama and small daughter aged 8 to 9 months reached there on motor cycle. Accused Pramod inquired about Vishnu from the petitioner. The petitioner replied that Vishnu had gone to another well. Accused Pramod went on motor cycle and brought Vishnu near the well where the petitioner was sitting. It is alleged that the victim Suyama had handed over the daughter to the petitioner and sat below a Badam tree. Accused Pramod and Vishnu lifted Suyama and threw her in the well. On hearing sound of something falling in the well, the petitioner asked as to what had happened. The petitioner was threatened by the accused not to tell anything to anyone. On coming to know that the body of deceased was found in the well the complaint was lodged that the accused i.e. the husband, in-laws and brother-in-Iaws of Suyama had committed murder and that the present petitioner had assisted them. The first information report was registered on 12-3-2004. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 19-3-2004. The first information report was registered on 12-3-2004. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 19-3-2004. It can be seen from the said statement that the present petitioner has supported the prosecution case. 4. Initially the present petitioner had filed an application for grant of pardon vide application at Exh.29 in Sessions Case No.153 of 2004. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, rejected the said application vide order dated 12-9-2006 and observed thus: "In case in hand, accused Suresh Gaikwad appears to be an eye-witness. He did not participate in crime. He did not aid in crime. It is different question why police added him as an accused instead of citing him as a eyewitness. When accused Suresh Gaikwad did not play any role in commission of crime, he cannot be said to be accomplice and pardon cannot be tendered to him. Hence, his application is rejected. ,,-5. Thus, it can be seen that the trial Court refused to grant pardon to the present petitioner on the ground that there was nothing against the present petitioner to implicate him in the crime and as such he cannot be said to be accomplice. However, the trial Court has framed charge against the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.381 of 2006 for quashing the order dated 12-9-2006 refusing to grant pardon and Criminal Application No.3647 of 2006 for quashing the charge. 6. The Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. S. B. Johari & Ors. (2000(2) see 57) has observed thus: "It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused. even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence. if any. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused. even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence. if any. cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. In such case. there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the tria1." (emphasis supplied) 7. In the present, perusal of the entire charge-sheet reveals that none of the witnesses attributed any role to the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It can be seen that the prosecution is not in a position to point out any material which would directly or indirectly establish the complicity of the petitioner in the· said offence. Not only that but the learned Additional Sessions Judge herself has observed while rejecting the application at Exh.29 for pardon that the petitioner did not participate in the crime and that he did not aid the said crime. The trial Court on perusal of the charge-sheet has categorically found that the petitioner did not play any role in the commission of the crime. 8. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have examined the charge-sheet to find out as to whether there is any material to establish complicity of the petitioner in the crime of murder. However, no such material could be found. In that view of the matter, there is no evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove guilt of the petitioner. As held by the Apex Court in the above cited case, the proceedings can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove guilt even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any. cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. In the present case, there is no evidence at all to establish prima facie complicity of the petitioner in the crime in question. In that view of the matter, the criminal application is allowed. Rule is made absolve in terms of prayer clause (C) 9. In view of the above order, nothing survives in Criminal Revision Application No.381 of 2006. Criminal application allowed.