Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The present revision has been filed by Mohinder Singh @ Mahender Singh and his brother Satender Singh against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhiwani on 18.3.2006 whereby charges under Sections 306/34 IPC were ordered to be framed against them and their co-accused. 2. The facts giving rise to the present case are that complainant Jai Lal had three sons including deceased Dalip. In the FIR lodged by said Jai Lal, he stated that in the month of October, 2002 his son Dalip received legal notice on behalf of Mir Singh s/o Maha Singh in respect of recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/-. On 5.11.2002, the complainant gave an application to SHO Police Station Dadri for registration of a case under Sections 420/468/467/479/471/384/34/120B IPC against Mir Singh, Mahender Singh, Satender Singh, Rajinder and Fateh Singh, Advocate stating therein that a pro-note had been forged by them, purporting to have been executed by Dalip for an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/-. On account of the aforementioned circumstances, Dalip used to remain depressed. On 17.11.2002 Dalip, with the members of his family, slept in his house. Next morning complainant Jai Lal was informed by his grandson Ajay that Dalip was not present since the previous night. A search was conducted which led to the recovery of Khes and a pair of Chappals lying near the well which belonged to Dalip. It was alleged that Dalip committed suicide due to the forgery of his signatures and receipt of legal notice for recovery of the loan amount and due to harassment on account of the said facts, he ended his life by jumping into the well. 3. After the conclusion of the investigation, challan was presented and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. It was thereafter entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhiwani for trial. After finding a prima facie case against the accused, the trial Court ordered the framing of charges under Sections 306/34 IPC against the petitioners and their co- accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no sufficient evidence on the record from which it could be inferred that the accused were liable to be charged. After finding a prima facie case against the accused, the trial Court ordered the framing of charges under Sections 306/34 IPC against the petitioners and their co- accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no sufficient evidence on the record from which it could be inferred that the accused were liable to be charged. Even, the police was aware of the same and in connivance with the complainant, it introduced the evidence about a suicide note said to have been left by the deceased, which was shown to have been taken into possession by the police on 25.11.2002. Even though the alleged suicide note was not signed by the deceased, thus, there was no evidence that the same was in the hand-writing of the deceased. The said note was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for getting opinion about the authorship of the same as had been done by sending the pro-note. Even complainant Jai Lal did not accept the police version that the alleged suicide note was recovered from the deceased. In fact, said Jai Lal had submitted an application on 24.2.2003 to the Director General of Police, Haryana wherein he specifically wrote that the alleged suicide note was not in the hand-writing of the deceased and instead it was a case falling under Section 302 IPC which had been registered only under Section 306. Finally, it was prayed that the order directing framing of charges against the petitioners be set aside and they be discharged. 5. Learned counsel for the State while supporting the order directing framing of charges argued that at that stage, the Court was not required to go into the merits of the allegations which has to be done at the time of final disposal of the trial. At the stage of framing of charges, the trial Court was to find out as to whether prima facie there was sufficient material to direct the framing of charges. Moreover, the charges can be framed when there is strong suspicion against the accused. There are allegations in the FIR itself that deceased Dalip had received a legal notice for recovery of Rs. 2,60,000/- from him on the basis of pro-note, said to have been executed by him in favour of Mir Singh accused. Moreover, the charges can be framed when there is strong suspicion against the accused. There are allegations in the FIR itself that deceased Dalip had received a legal notice for recovery of Rs. 2,60,000/- from him on the basis of pro-note, said to have been executed by him in favour of Mir Singh accused. According to the version given in the FIR, no such loan had been taken by the deceased nor he had executed any pro- note to that effect. On the other hand, the pro-note was a fabricated document and in that regard an application was submitted to the police for registration of a case against Mir Singh, Mahender Singh, Satender Singh, Rajinder and Fateh Singh. Ultimately, FIR No. 206 of 2002 was registered on 3.12.2002 on the basis of the complaint dated 5.11.2002. Prima facie it is there that the deceased had not received any money nor executed the pro-note and the accused were impressing upon him to pay of the amount of Rs. 2,60,000/-. The cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. There was no external injury on the dead body. The Khes and the pair of chappal belonging to the deceased were noticed lying near the well into which deceased had jumped and committed suicide. A perusal of the suicide note shows that the deceased was being harassed by the four accused including the petitioners. The recovery of said suicide note from the pocket of an old shirt of the deceased was effected in the presence of Jai Lal complainant on 25.11.2002 and supplementary statement of Jai Lal was recorded on that date under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the said effect. At the stage of consideration of the case for the purposes of framing of charges, the Court is required only to see prima facie if the accused have committed any offence or not. It is not required to delve deep into the allegations. In State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari and others, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 523 (SC) : AIR 2000 Supreme Court 665, the Honble Supreme Court laid down the approach to be adopted at the time of considering the case for framing of charges. It was held as under :- "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. It was held as under :- "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 material produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prime 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, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence. In such case there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial." The defence of the accused which they may take, cannot be gone into at this stage. The trial Court has found prima facie case for framing of charges under Sections 306/34 IPC against the accused as the deceased committed suicide on account of the fact that he was under depression for return of loan of Rs. 2,60,000/- on the basis of pro-note, which according to the complainant party, was a forged document. The order passed by lower Court thus suffers from no material illegality or irregularity. No case is made out for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The present petition is, therefore, without any merit and is dismissed.