Ashok Srivastava, J.: - This re­vision has been directed against the order dated 29.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut. An application under section 227 Cr.P.C. was moved before learned lower Court by the revisionists who were accused before him in S.T. No. 394 of 2008 under sections 364-A, 302, 201 and 120-B, IPC. After hearing both the parties the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application and ordered that charges under sections 302 and 120-B, IPC should be framed against revisionist Nos. 1 and 3 and a charge under section 201, IPC should also be framed against all the three revisionists. 2. The brief facts of this case are that on 28.9.2007 a gumshudgi report was lodged with the police of P.S. Partapur. Meerut by opposite party No. 2 Charani. As per report the grand son of opposite party No. 2 Akash aged about 8 years was missing since the evening of 27.9.2007 and till the morning of 28.9.2007 he was not traceable. On 28.9.2007 some time in the day the dead body of Akash was found in the premises of one Kiran Singh. The post mortem was conducted and it was found that the poor child was strangulated to death and before that he was badly assaulted. An F.I.R. un­der section 302, IPC was registered against unknown persons. During the course of investigation it was found that Sumit son of revisionist Nos. 1 and 3, who was having a bad character, had abducted Akash with the aid and advice of his paternal uncle Sensar Pal. It was also detected that the child was abducted for ransom. A tele­phonic call was made to the family mem­bers of opposite party No. 2 to pay a certain amount to abductee. However, the ransom was not paid and it appears that thereafter the child was done to death by Sensar Pal and Sumit in the residential house of the revisionists. During the course of investi­gation it also came to light that all the revi­sionists were involved in concealing and disposing of the dead body of Akash and a few witnesses had seen the incident of dis­posal of the dead body. After completing the investigation, investigating officer of the case submitted a charge sheet in the Court of learned Magistrate. All the revi­sionists were charge-sheeted under sections 304-A, 302 and 201, IPC. After completing the investigation, investigating officer of the case submitted a charge sheet in the Court of learned Magistrate. All the revi­sionists were charge-sheeted under sections 304-A, 302 and 201, IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. When the matter reached the stage of charge an application under section 227, Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the revision­ists which was rejected as mentioned above in this order. It has been argued before this Court by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the order passed by the learned lower Court is illegal and arbitrary, that the ap­plication under section 227, Cr.P.C. has been rejected without going through the records of the case. It has further been submitted that there is absolutely no mate­rial in the case diary on the basis of which a charge under sections 302 and 120-B, IPC can be framed against the revisionists 1 and 3 and a charge under section 201 IPC against revisionist Nos 1, 2 and 3. It has further been submitted that the revisionists have been implicated in this case only be­cause they are family members of co-accused Sumit and Sensar Pal. During the course of argument learned Counsel for the revisionists quoted before this Court the statements of all the wit­nesses of facts as contained in the case di­ary and has contended that there is nothing on record which may indicate the involve­ment of the revisionists in any manner whatsoever. The revision has been vehemently op­posed by the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. 4. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 stated that Sumit is the main accused in the case and he is the son of re­visionist Nos. 1 and 3 and grand son of re­visionist No. 2. Another accused Sensar Pal is real brother of revisionist No. 1. It has further been submitted that by no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that revi­sionists, who are the family members of co-accused Sumit and Sensar Pal did not con­spire in the incident of murder and dis­posal of the dead body of the deceased. It has also been submitted that there is posi­tive evidence against all the revisionists as far as section 201, IPC is concerned. Vari­ous rulings of Apex Court have been filed in this case. 5. I have gone through the entire case diary. It has also been submitted that there is posi­tive evidence against all the revisionists as far as section 201, IPC is concerned. Vari­ous rulings of Apex Court have been filed in this case. 5. I have gone through the entire case diary. It should be mentioned here that from the side of the State a true pho­tostat copy of the entire case diary has been produced for perusal of the Court. From perusal of the case diary and statements of the witnesses of facts as recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. it is evident that there is nothing in the case diary which may in­dicate the existence of any conspiracy to murder Akash in which any of the revision­ists was involved. There is absolutely no evidence which may indicate that there has been a conspiracy between the co-accused Sumit and Sensar Pal on one part and the revisionists on the other. Therefore, the finding of the learned lower Court whereby it has held that a charge under sections 302 and 120-B, IPC should be framed against revisionist Nos. 1 and 3 is not based on evidence and to a certain extent it is per­verse. As far as the case of revisionist No. 2 Smt. Vimla is concerned she is the grand mother of the main accused Sumit and is an aged lady. There is nothing on record which may indicate that she was involved in concealing the evidence of murder or destroying the same or she is in any way involved with the disposal of dead body of the deceased. Therefore, no charge under section 201, IPC can be framed against her and she is entitled to be discharged under section 227, Cr. P.C. of all the charges men­tioned in the charge sheet. 6. I have examined the case law re­ported in Dilawar Babu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (44) ACC 447. Therefore, no charge under section 201, IPC can be framed against her and she is entitled to be discharged under section 227, Cr. P.C. of all the charges men­tioned in the charge sheet. 6. I have examined the case law re­ported in Dilawar Babu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (44) ACC 447. In this case the Apex Court has held that: "Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by an large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence pro­duced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising ju­risdiction under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge can not act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prose­cution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court but should not make a rov­ing enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evi­dence as is he was conducting a trial." 7. In the instant case there are some positive evidence against the revisionists Shyam Singh and his wife Geeta @ Vimla as far as an offence under section 201,I.P.C. is concerned. It is a case which discloses grave suspicion against them and therefore keeping in view Dilawar Babu Kurane's case (supra) a charge under section 201/34, IPC should be framed against them. On the basis of the above discussions, am of the view that the revision should be partly allowed. The revision is partly allowed. As far as revisionist No. 2, Smt. Vimla w/o Gokul is concerned, she stands discharged under section 227, Cr.P.C. of all the charges men­tioned in the charge sheet. Charges only under section 201/34, IPC should be framed against Shyam Singh, revisionist No. 1 and Smt. Geeta @ Vimla, w/o Shyam Singh revisionist No. 2 and no charge un­der sections 302/120-B or 302/34, I.P.C. shall be framed against them. Revision Partly Allowed.