ORDER : This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2013 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi in refusing to discharge the accused for the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC. The revision petitioner/accused challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge on the grounds as mentioned at ground Nos.16, 17 and 18. 2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case that he filed the private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the JMFC II Court Hubballi, wherein he has stated that the complainant is working as Manager Personnel, Lafarge Company at Sonadih Cement Plant, at P.O. Raseda of Raipur in Chattisgrah State, for the last four years prior. The complainant is accommodated in company owned quarters in Raseda. Complainant’s family were staying at Lafarge colony at Gopal Nagar, Dist.Janjgir/Champa (Chhatisgarh). The complainant’s family consists of himself, his wife, two daughters and one son. Complainant’s eldest daughter by name Saba, aged about 23 years was studying in B.Com. 3rd year. The accused person is the son of one Subodh Chandu, a retired employee of Lafarge and Smt. Manjulata Chandu presently working as Nurse in the hospital of Lafarge company. As such they were accommodated in the nearby company quarters. The accused being post graduate and working as sales personnel, was also giving tuition classes. As such the complainant’s daughter by name Saba was taking tuition classes since January 2003 and was frequently visiting the family of the accused. The accused under the grab of giving tuition classes induced the daughter of complainant to fall in love with him. Saba, being the eldest daughter of the complainant, has no worldly knowledge, fell in love with the accused. The accused knowing fully well that Saba, daughter of Nazir Kutty Machingal belong to Muslim Community, in order to marry her, took the deceased to the nearest Court of marriage, at Janjgir/Champa on 11.11.2003. The complainant came to know about the intention of the accused after the notice being served on him by the Registrar of Marriage. The complainant made all the enquiries about the intention of the marriage and made both his daughter and accused to drop their intention of marriage. At the instance of his daughter, complainant agreed for the marriage. The complainant came to know about the intention of the accused after the notice being served on him by the Registrar of Marriage. The complainant made all the enquiries about the intention of the marriage and made both his daughter and accused to drop their intention of marriage. At the instance of his daughter, complainant agreed for the marriage. The complainant sent his daughter to the house of his sister staying at house No.68/69, Santosh Nagar, Hubballi, for change of environment in the month of December 2003. Saba, the daughter of the complainant, was induced by the accused as and when being called over phone. The accused instead of making every person consent for the marriage with Saba, refused to marry on 16.02.2004 on telephone. Saba again talked to the accused on the fateful day i.e., 19.02.2004 at about 20.56 hours through public STD booth, i.e., an hour before the deceased committed suicide. The deceased took this extreme step after hearing that her fiancee cheated her after exploiting her both mentally and physically. The accused used to call to the sister’s house of the complainant at Hubballi. The STD booth operator is the witness to the talks of Saba and the accused. Saba wrote a suicide note on 19.02.2004, before committing suicide, thereby being disgusted in life after the refusal of accused to marry her. Saba took her life by hanging for the act, omission and commissions of the accused, and after being lured and spoiling her life and reputation. The complainant was under deep shock after hearing about the incidence of his daughter committing suicide. On 22.02.2004, body of the deceased was handed over to the parents by the forensic department and as such a postmortem report was given dated 22.02.2004. The complainant was deeply shocked due to the act of his daughter. As such he could not make up his mind to even open the belongings of his daughter. The complainant came to know about the acts, commissions committed by the accused when he opened the belonging of his daughter at his quarters at Raseda, Raipur Dist., Chhattisgarh, on 16.03.2004. The complainant came to know that accused induced the deceased to marry him. As such, he had taken his daughter to the Court of registrar of marriage at Janjgir, Champa on 11.11.2003. The accused induced her to swear an affidavit promising her that he will marry her. The complainant came to know that accused induced the deceased to marry him. As such, he had taken his daughter to the Court of registrar of marriage at Janjgir, Champa on 11.11.2003. The accused induced her to swear an affidavit promising her that he will marry her. The accused took her to many places and was in the company of the girl for many months. Taking every advantage of the company, the accused has spoiled the life of the deceased. The accused has written letters inducing deceased to wait for him and be loyal to accused, be in discipline, concentrate on the goal (target) and if the deceased do it properly, the deceased may get the accused easily. The father and mother of the accused also assaulted the deceased after they came to know of the notice from the Court of marriage. The complainant came to know of this fact only after going through the diary writings of the deceased. The deceased Saba was in the habit of writing diaries. The complainant came to know about the intentions of the accused after going to his place and opening of all the belongings of the deceased on 16.03.2004. The accused has been playing with the sentiments and emotions of the deceased. On finding the documents of the deceased, the complainant has written letter by RPAD dated 18.03.2004 to the Inspector, Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubballi, informing about the acts, commissions of offence by the accused. The complainant was under the bonafide belief that the act done by the accused will be taken cognizance by the Police. Again on 16.04.2004 wrote a RPAD letter to the Inspector, Vidyanagar, Hubballi, when the complainant did not receive any reply to the letter dated 18.03.2004. The complainant carrying with all the found documents has reached Hubbali on 24.05.2014 from Raseda, Chattisgarh. The deceased has typewritten a letter dated 17.02.2004 informing the complainant about the true facts. The deceased has informed all the things in the letter. After hearing about the refusal by the accused to marry the deceased, the deceased in her shock has written a suicide note, which will throw complete light over the acts of the accused. As such the Vidyanagar Police registered a unnatural death case that accused committed the offences under Sections 304 and 306 of IPC. After hearing about the refusal by the accused to marry the deceased, the deceased in her shock has written a suicide note, which will throw complete light over the acts of the accused. As such the Vidyanagar Police registered a unnatural death case that accused committed the offences under Sections 304 and 306 of IPC. The complainant prayed the Court to take cognizance of the acts of the accused and to take appropriate action. The accused has communicated to the deceased of his intention to cheat the deceased. As a consequence of cheating, the deceased hanged herself and committed suicide at the House No.68/69, Santoshnagar, Hubli. The Santosh Nagar comes under Vidyanagar Police Station and as such the Court is having jurisdiction to try the accused and punish him for the offences under Section 304 and 306 of IPC. The concerned JMFC Court took cognizance of the offence. Then the accused person moved the application before the Trial Court, at the first instance, seeking his discharge from the proceedings. The Trial Court found that there was a prima facie material and held that charge is to be framed against the accused person and the case is to be proceeded with. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the accused person approached this Court by filing Crl.P.NO.10728/2011 seeking to quash the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. This Court by order dated 7th March 2012 set aside the order holding that the said order is not a speaking order and thereby remitted the matter back to the concerned Sessions Court to consider the matter afresh and dispose of the application seeking discharge from the proceedings. Thereafterwards, again the learned Sessions Judge has considered the application. After hearing both the sides, by order dated 16th November 2013 passed in S.C. No.14/2008, the learned Sessions Judge has held that there is a prima facie material to proceed against the accused and it is not a case for discharging him. Accordingly, the application seeking discharge came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and the matter was ordered to be posted for framing of charge by 23.11.2013. This order is challenged before this Court by the petitioner in this petition. 4. Accordingly, the application seeking discharge came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and the matter was ordered to be posted for framing of charge by 23.11.2013. This order is challenged before this Court by the petitioner in this petition. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant and so also the learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1-State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, during the course of the arguments, made the submission that the alleged offence is under Section 306 of IPC and looking to the prosecution material, there is no material placed by the prosecution to show that there is abetment of suicide at the instance of the accused person. In this connection, the learned counsel referred to Section 107 of IPC and made the submission that out of the three grounds as mentioned in the said section none of the grounds can be made applicable as there is no such material placed by the prosecution. It is also his submission that the deceased herself left a death note dated 19.02.2004 wherein at the end she has made it very clear that nobody is responsible for her death. Learned counsel further made the submission that as the death had taken place at Hubli in the house of the relatives of the deceased, the police have, after considering the death note, recorded the statements of the relatives and registered the case in UDR 15/2004. The learned counsel submitted that even the statements recorded by the police in the UDR proceedings clearly go to show that the present petitioner is in no way concerned with the death of the deceased and he has not at all responsible for the death of the deceased. He also made the submission that even considering the charge-sheet material said to have been collected by the police during the investigation, there is no material pointing that it is accused person who induced the deceased to commit suicide and, in the absence of such material, it cannot be said that the accused person is responsible for the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC. Counsel further made the submission that looking to the proceedings before the Registrar of Marriage, both the accused person as well as the deceased filed an application and joint affidavit that they going to marry, but it is the complainant himself, in order to avoid the same, sent the lady (deceased) to the relatives house at Hubli. Hence, the learned counsel made the submission that the marriage not taking place between the two, it is not the accused who is responsible, but on the other hand, it is the father of the deceased himself responsible. Hence, on this ground also, the learned counsel made the submission that no fault can be found with the accused person for committing the said offence. Apart from that, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned counsel made the submission that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken into consideration, they will not attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, he made the submission that a false case has been booked against the petitioner. Learned counsel made the submission that initially, the case has been registered under UDR No.15/2004 and after recording the statements and other materials the case was closed, but subsequently, by crating documents stating that there are materials left by the deceased, the complainant has filed a false private complaint and, therefore, there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution. All these material aspects were not at all considered by the learned Sessions Judge while considering the application seeking discharge and passed the order wrongly rejecting the application seeking discharge and holding that there is a prima facie material to proceed against the accused. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge be set aside and the application seeking discharge be allowed and the petitioner may be discharged from the proceedings. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 complainant submitted that looking to the prosecution materials, there is a prima facie case against the accused for having committed the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 complainant submitted that looking to the prosecution materials, there is a prima facie case against the accused for having committed the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC. Learned counsel made the submission that when the incident has taken place the parents were at Raseda of Raipur in Chattisgarh State and when by the time they came, the police, in a hurry and without making proper investigation in the matter, registered the case as an unnatural death case and only on the basis of last sentence in the death note dated 19.02.2004 decided to close the case. Learned counsel submitted that the father of the deceased, after coming over to Hubli, he took the suitcase belonging to the deceased and went back; that on 16.03.2004, when he opened the suit case, he noticed a personal diary of the deceased; there were writings made in the diary. Counsel also made the submission that there was a typewritten letter, dated 17.02.2004, addressed to her father and if the contents of the letter are perused it clearly speaks about the accused person, who is solely responsible for the death of the deceased. It is also his submission that the entire contents of the letter are to be looked into in order to ascertain whether such offence has been committed or not, and not taking up the contents here and there in isolation. Apart from that, he made the submission that the accused person, no doubt, made an application before the Registrar of Marriage on 11.11.2003, but subsequently, he filed an application making his intention very clear that he is not willing to marry the said girl because his family members were not ready to give consent for that marriage. Counsel made the submission that on record though he made such an application, he continued to have conversation with the deceased. Hence, this itself clearly go to show the criminal mentality of the accused person. Counsel also submitted that regarding talking over the phone by the deceased with the accused person in the STD Booth nearby the house of deceased at Hubli, there are evidence of STD operators and police had recorded their statements also during investigation which clearly go to show that she was talking with the accused person over phone. Counsel also submitted that regarding talking over the phone by the deceased with the accused person in the STD Booth nearby the house of deceased at Hubli, there are evidence of STD operators and police had recorded their statements also during investigation which clearly go to show that she was talking with the accused person over phone. Even on the date of committing suicide on 19.02.2004, during late night, the deceased spoke with the accused for an hour and with regard to that also there is material collected by the police during investigation. Therefore, the learned counsel also made the submission that if all these materials are perused, the learned Sessions Judge is right in coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case to proceed against the accused person for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and it cannot be said that the proceedings initiated are clear abuse of process of the court and that the matter is liable to be quashed as sought for by the petitioner/accused herein. With regard to the scope and ambit of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. also, learned counsel relied upon the decision which is produced along with the synopsis, they are: 1) Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2004 SC 1106; and 2) Hem Chand Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2208)2 RCR (Cri) 510. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 12 and para no.22 in the case of Umesh Kumar. He also drew the attention of this Court to para 12 in the case of Hem Chand and made the submission that in view of the legal position as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly exercised his power while considering the application filed under Section 227 and rightly held that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and the matter is to be proceeded with. He also submitted that there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is to be rejected. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader also made the submission that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly passed the order rejecting the application of the petitioner/accused, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is to be rejected. 8. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader also made the submission that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly passed the order rejecting the application of the petitioner/accused, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is to be rejected. 8. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition filed by the petitioner, the contents of the private complaint filed by the respondent No.2- complainant, who is the father of the deceased. So also, I have perused the entire charge-sheet material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. I have also perused the materials collected in respect of UDR No.15/2004. 9. Looking to the complaint averments, the main allegation is that the deceased was going to tuition classes run by the accused person and there developed a love affair between the two; when they wanted to marry and made an application before the Registrar of Marriage and when it came to be known by the father of the deceased, he called both, his daughter and accused person, and advised them to give up the idea of having marriage. The complaint averments further go to show that at the instance of her daughter, complainant agreed for the said marriage. The materials also go to show that subsequently, the complainant sent his daughter to Hubli to his relatives house on 07.12.2003, so that there will be change in the atmosphere for his daughter. The prosecution material relied upon goes to show that there are two letters said to have been left by the deceased – one dated 19/17.02.2004 which is addressed by the police on the death of death and sustained said to have been committed and the police have taken this death note dated 19.02.2004 during UDR proceedings. The prosecution material relied upon goes to show that there are two letters said to have been left by the deceased – one dated 19/17.02.2004 which is addressed by the police on the death of death and sustained said to have been committed and the police have taken this death note dated 19.02.2004 during UDR proceedings. Sofar as another letter is concerned, it is dated 17.02.2004 regarding this letter, the complainant has mentioned in detail in his complaint that when he came to Hubli, after hearing the news that his daughter committed suicide, then when he was going back, he carried the suitcase belonging to his daughter and was in deep shock that he did not think to open the suit case, but it is only on 16.03.2004 when he open the suit case, he found a personal diary of the deceased wherein she made writings and one of such writings is dated 17.02.2004 addressed to his father and the contents of the said note written by the deceased reads as under: “Dearest Papa I am sorry to write u this letter. I am not in a position to express my sorrow. I am in love with Mukku. On 11/11/03 Mukku given affidavit that he is marrying me. The affidavit is in my educational file in gopalnagar. On 26/1/03, he wrote me letter and greeting. He advised me to wait. On 16/2/04, I talked him on phone. He refused to marry me. I am in deep shock. I am in shock condition not want to live. I will talk him again. If Mukku will cheat me I will not live as he spoiled me saying that we are married. If in future, any thing happen to me or I commit suicide Mukku should be held responsible for that. I am leaving this note in with my diary. My diary will tell u everything. On 16/2/2004, I written u greeting, but not sent, Sorry Papa. That greeting is with my diary. Your daughter Saba Hubli.” The contention of the petitioner in relation to this letter is concerned that it is created subsequently and with this false document. Complainant made false allegation against the petitioner herein. But, sofar as this contention is concerned, looking to the prosecution material, this document was produced by the complainant along with the original complaint. Your daughter Saba Hubli.” The contention of the petitioner in relation to this letter is concerned that it is created subsequently and with this false document. Complainant made false allegation against the petitioner herein. But, sofar as this contention is concerned, looking to the prosecution material, this document was produced by the complainant along with the original complaint. Looking to the list of documents annexed to the said complaint, the document at Sl. No.8 is the original letter typed written by the deceased, which is dated 17.02.2004. The said document was also produced before the Court along with the original complaint itself. Subsequently, the said document was sent for experts opinion. The prosecution has produced the opinion of the hand: writing expert, who has given the opinion that signature found on the said letter is that of the deceased. Apart from that looking to the document dated 9.12.2003, it is the application made by the present petitioner to the Registrar of Marriage, wherein he has requested that his application seeking marriage is to be immediately cancelled. The contents of this application clearly goes to show that he informed the Registrar of Marriage that his family members are not giving consent for their marriage and he is not willing to marry Kumari Saba. Therefore, it prima facie probablises the contention of the prosecution that on 16.02.2004 when there was a talk over the phone by the deceased as well as the accused person, he informed his decision to the deceased and the contents of the said letter also are to this effect. Regarding another letter is concerned about which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on and argued that the last sentence in the said letter wherein she has written that nobody is responsible for my death, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant is justified in making the submission that it is not the last sentence, but complete words of that letter is to be taken into consideration and it has to be interpreted with reference to other materials produced by the prosecution. therefore, considering the entire materials what is the cumulative effect of all the material that has to be taken into consideration to know whether there is a prima facie case. therefore, considering the entire materials what is the cumulative effect of all the material that has to be taken into consideration to know whether there is a prima facie case. Apart from that, I have also perused the statement of the operators of STD booth whose statements were also recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation and one of such statements is of Nazeer Ahmed, S/o Appasaheb Pachchapur, which statement is recorded on 04.02.2005, wherein he has stated that he is staying at the address mentioned; he knows the complainant Nazeer Ahmed Machchingal and he also stated that from 2001 to 2004 he was having HSF STD booth in Santosh Nagar Main Road, Hubli, and its number is 2254106; he was attending the STD booth and it was kept open from morning 8.00 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. and from 10.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. he had appointed one lady to look after the STD booth. During day time, he was attending the plumbing work and during night from 8.00 p.m. he himself was looking after the STD booth and in the year 2004, he closed the STD booth; nearby his STD booth, there was a house of one Sahebjan Bahadur and in the said house there is one lady by name Saba Machchingal came from Chattisgarh; said lady used to come to his STD booth occasionally and on one such occasion she came to the STD booth and she was talking from STD phone box and while taking over the phone sometimes she was weeping when he enquired with her as to why she was weeping, without saying anything and paying the phone bill, she used to go back; on 09.02.2004, Sabha Ban came to the STD booth at 9.00 p.m., but at that time she did not phone from the STD phone box, but she phone from outside and when she was talking over the phone in Hindi, she was telling in case if he did not marry her, she is going to commit suicide and again she was going back weeping, but he did not know how much amount she has paid for the phone charges. I have also perused the statement of another one Ranganath, S/o Mallikajun Shetty, wherein he has stated that he is running Lakshmi Venkateshwara General Stores and doing business and in his shop he has also kept the STD booth and its number is 2254145; the deceased Kumari Sabha, prior to her death, used to come to his TD booth and she was telephoning to other end. They have not prepared the box, the phone was kept open; on 19.02.2004 at 9.45 p.m., when he was in the shop Kumari Sabha came to the shop for the purpose of using phone. He has further stated that, at the time of talking over phone, the deceased Sabha was stating that,- “xxxxxxxxxxxxx” Like that she was talking weeping. So the statements of these two persons who kept the STD booth also prima facie supports the prosecution case. Even on the date of death, she talked over phone to the petitioner and all the times whenever she used to talk to Mukku i.e., the petitioner herein, she was weeping. Therefore, considering these materials, there is consistency in the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation and produced before the Court. Even the handwriting experts opinion is also there. 10. Though it is contended that the letter dated 17.2.2004 is created falsely by the prosecution to file a false case against the petitioner, but the Court while considering the matter under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot assume the role of the trial Court, cannot conduct a mini trial appreciating the materials to know whether it is false or true, it is left to the trial Court. As it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-complainant, the Court has to consider after perusing the materials placed before the it whether it makes out a case to proceed with the matter or the case of the prosecution is totally groundless and it is abuse of process of the Court. 11. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I am of the clear opinion that the learned Sessions Judge is right in holding that there is prima facie material. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by the parties. 11. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I am of the clear opinion that the learned Sessions Judge is right in holding that there is prima facie material. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by the parties. So far as the decision relied upon by the petitioner-accused, looking to those reported decisions, the factual story in those decisions so also the story involved in the present case, they are not exactly one and the same. Therefore at this stage those decisions will not come to the aid and assistance of the petitioneraccused. Hence there is no merit in the revision petition and the learned Sessions Judge rightly comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case to proceed with the matter. Accordingly this revision petition is hereby rejected.