JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 7.7.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.45/2013 whereby the learned trial Court ordered to frame charge for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that FIR No.70/2012 came to be registered at Police Station Malsisar (District Jhunjhunu) for the offences under Sections 143 and 306 IPC on the basis of a written complaint filed by Smt. Vimla Devi wife of deceased-Shri Mahendra Singh. In the report it was alleged that petitioners and some other persons named in it threatened the deceased with dire consequences if he fails to deliver back the room which the deceased purchased from petitioner-Shri Sahdev after paying sale consideration and, therefore, they instigated the deceased-Shri Mahendra Singh to end his life by committing suicide on 27.5.2012. It is to be noted that petitioners-Shri Bajrang Lal, Manphool and Sahdev are real brother of the deceased while petitioner-Smt. Bhagoti Devi is wife of petitioner Shri Sahdev. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners for offence under Section 306 IPC and the learned trial Court after hearing the parties ordered to frame charge for the aforesaid offence against the petitioners. 3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for an offence to be made out for offence under Section 306 IPC it is to be shown that the accused abeted the deceased to commit suicide but in the present case there is no iota of evidence even prima facie to show that petitioners or any of them abeted Shri Mahendra Singh to commit suicide. It was further submitted that whatever evidence is available on record in the present case if accepted as it is even then there is nothing on the basis of that it may be presumed that any instigation or incitement was made by the petitioners that resulted into commission of suicide by Shri Mahendra Singh. It was further submitted that whatever evidence is available on record in the present case if accepted as it is even then there is nothing on the basis of that it may be presumed that any instigation or incitement was made by the petitioners that resulted into commission of suicide by Shri Mahendra Singh. It was submitted that at the most prosecution case is that the deceased was threatened by the petitioners to hand over back the possession of the room allegedly purchased by him from one of the petitioners and they asserted pressure upon the deceased for it but that itself is not sufficient to charge and try the petitioners for an offence under Section 306 IPC. It was also submitted that the incident is of 27.5.2012 whereas FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay on 6.6.2012 whereas prior to it Merg Report No.9/2012 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered on 28.7.2012 in which statement of complainant-Smt. Vimla Devi was recorded but no allegation of instigation on the part of the petitioners was levelled resulting suicide by the deceased. It was further submitted that during the course of inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. statement of complainant-Smt. Vimla Devi was recorded on 2.6.2012 in which allegation was levelled that the deceased has been murdered by the petitioners and thereafter his dead-body was thrown in the well but when no evidence could be collected regarding murder of the deceased by the petitioners, a new story was developed and allegation of threat on the part of the petitioners and other persons was levelled so as to show the death of the deceased as suicide on account of harassment on the part of the petitioners. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the cases of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 , Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1994 Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 249 , M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Suraj Karan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2008 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 165. 5. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2008 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 165. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported by the learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that in the instant case there is sufficient evidence available on record to show that the petitioners were persistently harassing the deceased and were giving threat to him to return back the room which the deceased purchased from one of the petitioners namely Shri Sahdev after paying sale consideration. It was further submitted that it is not a case in which the alleged harassment of the deceased occurred only on a single occasion but it was a matter of persistent harassment. It was also submitted that it is well settled legal position that if a person is persistently harassed and humiliated for a prolonged period of time and as a result thereof he commits suicide, it clearly comes within the purview of abetment on the part of the accused. It was further submitted that no straight jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation on the part of the accused which forced a person to commit suicide and in such a case an interference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined during trial whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created situation that the person took steps to commit suicide. It was also submitted that at the stage of framing of charge for an offence no mini trial is contemplated and the Court is to proceed with assumption that materials brought on record by prosecution are true and only probative value of materials has to be gone into to see if there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. It was also submitted that at this stage Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and held that evidence would not warrant a conviction and if the Court on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation, thinks that accused prima facie might have committed offence, it can frame the charge. 6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan & Ors. 6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan & Ors. reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Mishra reported in (2015) 13 SCC 8 , Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734 and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 . 7. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record including the evidence collected during investigation which has been placed on record by way of copy of the charge-sheet and also the well settled legal position and more particularly in view of the reasons recorded by the learned Court below in support of the impugned order, I do not find any illegality, impropriety and perversity in the same requiring interference by this Court. 8. Consequently, the revision petition being meritless is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. 9. The office is directed to send back the record immediately to the trial Court. *******