JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition filed by the petitioner - Jai Prakash under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 3.11.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Khetri whereby in Sessions Case No. 24/2007 charges were framed against the accused - Jai Prakash along with other co-accused persons for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor, which was accepted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State at the admission stage on the request and consent of both parties. 3. It was, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that the incident took place on 26.2.2007 and it is admitted case of the prosecution that on that date he was not in the village, but he was present at his work-place in 3 Mahar Regiment. Therefore, it cannot be said that he, in any way, abetted his deceased wife for committing suicide. It was also contended that Kamal, brother of the deceased, did not state that the petitioner abetted his wife for committing suicide but he only alleged other accused-persons, who were in the village. It was then contended that the Police, after investigation, has filed charge-sheet only for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. against him, but without any material and by a non-speaking order, the trial Court also framed charge for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. It is not disputed that on the date of incident the accused-petitioner was not in the village but was at his work-place in the military. Charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner was also filed for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. but trial Court by a cryptic order and without assigning any reason to satisfy itself that whether prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., has also framed the charge for which that offence deserves to be quashed in these circumstances. 6. 6. Accordingly, the charge framed by the impugned order against the accused-petitioner Jai Prakash is hereby quashed and set aside, and the case is remanded back to the trial Court for passing fresh order in regard to framing of the charge against him, after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******