JUDGMENT : Z.A. HAQ, J. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant has challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the application field by her under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. On the report given by Sanjog Mahendra Gopnarayan, Crime No. 307 of 2010 came to be registered on 28/11/2010 against Sushil Zade (son of the present applicant) and the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed against Sushil Zade and the applicant. 5. The applicant filed application (Exh.5) under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that she is residing separately from Sushil Zade since 2001 and this is substantiated by the fact that even in the charge-sheet, the address of the applicant is different from the address of Sushil Zade, that the applicant has no concern with Sushil Zade and never resided with him and the applicant is residing with her younger son Anand and his family members. The applicant further stated that the report lodged by Sanjog Mahendra Gopnarayan shows that the applicant was not present at the time of marriage of Sushil Zade with deceased Shubhangi. With these submissions, the applicant prayed that she be discharged from the prosecution as there is no material on record which shows that prima-facie case exists for prosecution of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the accused cannot be discharged if there is suspicion against the accused and it is not necessary that sufficient grounds should exist for prosecuting the accused. The learned Additional Sessions has observed that there are allegations and incriminating circumstances which show that the applicant had offered an amount of Rs. Two Lakhs to deceased Shubhangi for giving divorce to Sushil Zade. It is further recorded that though Sanjog Mahendra Gopnarayan (informant) has stated that he came to know about the above fact from his paternal aunt-Draupadibai, it cannot be said at this stage that sufficient ground does not exist for prosecuting the applicant. With these considerations, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application (Exh.5) filed by the applicant. It is further recorded that though Sanjog Mahendra Gopnarayan (informant) has stated that he came to know about the above fact from his paternal aunt-Draupadibai, it cannot be said at this stage that sufficient ground does not exist for prosecuting the applicant. With these considerations, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application (Exh.5) filed by the applicant. The applicant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has filed this application. 7. On record, the only allegation against the applicant is that Sanjog Mahendra Gopnarayan (informant) has stated that his paternal aunt-Draupadibai told him that the applicant had offered Rs. Two Lakhs to deceased Shubhangi for giving divorce to Sushil Zade. There is nothing on record to show as to on what date the applicant had asked deceased Shubhangi to give divorce to Sushil Zade and take the amount of Rs. Two Lakhs. In any case, it cannot be said that the overt-act attributed to the applicant is of such a nature that deceased Shubhangi is compelled to take extreme step of committing suicide. There is no live link between the alleged overt-act attributed to the applicant and the incident. The charge-sheet shows that the address of the applicant is different from the address of Sushil Zade. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to consider these relevant aspects. 8. In my view, sufficient material is not available on record to prosecute the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the allegations against the applicant, even if found to be true, does not constitute an offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, it has to be held that the impugned order is unsustainable. 9. Hence, the following order : (i) The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2014 on the application (Exh.5) on 25th March, 2015 is set aside. (ii) Application (Exh.5) filed by the applicant is allowed and she is discharged from the prosecution in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2014. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.