JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.7/2015, whereby the application of the petitioner for dropping the proceedings pending against him in Sessions Case No.7/2015 (State v. Siyaram & Ors.) has been rejected. Apart from making prayer for setting aside the order dated 21.12.2015, the petitioner has also prayed that the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.7/2015 pending against him in the trial court may be dropped by this Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Bhinyaram submitted a report on 11.11.2007 at Police Station, Nagaur, District Nagaur alleging that he came to know through telephonic message that his son Punamchand has committed suicide by hanging himself. It is alleged by the complainant – Bhinyaram that his son Punamchand along with his wife Bhanwari Devi was living in their own house, whereas he lives with his family in neighbouring house. It is further alleged that he went out for some work on the date of incident and when he returned, his niece Laxman informed him that Mansih and Deepak, who happened to be grandsons of Bhinyaram and sons of the deceased Punamchand, have informed that the door of their father’s room is locked from inside. It is stated that Laxman further informed that when he got the door opened, he saw that Punamchand was hanging from a noose. 3. The complainant – Bhinyaram has expressed suspicion that Bhanwari Devi, wife of the deceased Punamchand, and Shrawan Jat are responsible for death of his son Punamchand. He also alleged that Punamchand committed suicide because of illicit relation of his wife Bhanwari Devi and Shrawan Jat. On the said complaint, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the police, however, Hansraj Vishnoi, brother of the deceased Punamchand, filed complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur against four persons viz. Bhanwari, Shrawan Jat, Laxmanram and the petitioner - Shiv Kumar @ Shivla alleging that the above named persons have murdered the deceased Punamchand and for various other offences. Bhanwari, Shrawan Jat, Laxmanram and the petitioner - Shiv Kumar @ Shivla alleging that the above named persons have murdered the deceased Punamchand and for various other offences. The said complaint filed by Hansraj Vishnoi was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the Police Station, Nagaur, District Nagaur registered FIR No.495/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 347, 302, 460, 201/34 and 120-B IPC against the above named three persons as well as against the petitioner. After investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 120-B and 323 IPC. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, from where it was transferred to the trial court. The trial court, after hearing counsel for the accused persons and the Public Prosecutor, has framed charges against the petitioner and other co-accused persons viz. Bhanwari Devi, Shrawan and Laxman for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 120-B and 323 IPC vide order dated 29.07.2008. 5. The order dated 29.07.2008 passed by the trial court of framing charges was challenged by Bhanwri Devi, Shrawan and Laxman before this Court through S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.897/2008 (Sharwan Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan) and No.875/2008 (Laxman Ram v. State of Rajsthan). The said criminal revision petitions were allowed by this Court on 03.02.2012 and the order of trial court dated 29.07.2008 of framing of charges against Bhanwri Devi, Shrawan and Laxman for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 120-B and 323 IPC was set aside. 6. At this stage, the petitioner has filed application before the trial court with a prayer for dropping the proceedings against him as his case is not distinguishable from those co-accused persons, who have been discharged by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2012 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos.897/2008 and 875/2008. The trial court has rejected the said application of the petitioner vide impugned order while observing that it has no jurisdiction to review the order of framing of charges against the petitioner. Hence, this criminal misc. petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence against the petitioner and the other co-accused viz. The trial court has rejected the said application of the petitioner vide impugned order while observing that it has no jurisdiction to review the order of framing of charges against the petitioner. Hence, this criminal misc. petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence against the petitioner and the other co-accused viz. Bhanwari Devi, Shrawan and Laxman is similar in nature and when this Court vide order dated 03.02.2012 has already held that on the basis of the said evidence the trial court has erred in framing charges against those accused persons the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but gross injustice to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the trial court in Sessions Case No.7/2015 may kindly be dropped. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court because it has no jurisdiction to review its order of framing of charges against the petitioner and, therefore, no interference is called for in this criminal misc. petition. 8. However, learned Public Prosecutor has frankly admitted that the evidence against the petitioner is not distinguishable from the evidence, which was available against the co-accused persons viz. Bhanwari Devi, Shrawan and Laxman. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned as well as the other material available on record. 10. The certified copy of the order dated 03.02.2011 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.897/2008 (Sharwan Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan) and No.875/2008 (Laxman Ram v. State of Rajsthan) is available on record. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, after analysing the material available on record has set aside the order dated 29.07.2008 passed by the trial court of framing of charges against the above named three co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 120-B and 323 IPC. 11. It is not in dispute that the evidence against the petitioner is not distinguishable from the evidence available against the above named three co-accused persons. 11. It is not in dispute that the evidence against the petitioner is not distinguishable from the evidence available against the above named three co-accused persons. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 03.02.2012 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos.897/2008 and 875/2008 has observed as under:- “I have given my thoughtful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the order impugned as well as the record of the case. For a proper consideration of the issue raised by way of the present petitions, the charges which have been framed against the accused need to be considered. They read as follows:- ^^igyk%& ;g fd fnukad 10@11-11-2007 dh njfe;kuh jkf= dks fdlh le; okds dj.kh dkWyksuh ukxkSj esa iwuepan fo’uksbZ us vius edku esa Qkalh [kkdj vkRegR;k dh Fkh vkSj vkius vFkkZr Hkaojhnsoh us iwuepan dh iRuh gksrs gq, ,oa Jo.kjke xksnkjk] fl;kjke mQZ f’kodqekj mQZ f’koyk] fyNe.k mQZ y{e.kjke us Hkaojhnsoh ds lg;ksx gksrs gq,A vki eqyfteku }kjk iwuepan dks vkRegR;k fd, tkus dk nq”izsj.k fd;kA bl izdkj vkius Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 306 ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k tks fd esjs izlaKku esa gSA nwljk%& mDr fnukad le; o LFkku ij vFko blls iwoZ vkius Hkaojhnsoh] Jo.kjke] lh;kjke mQZ f’kodqekj mQZ f’koyk] fyNe.k mQZ y{e.kjke lg vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk feydj iwuepan dks vkRegR;k djus gsrq nq”izsfjr djus ds voS/k d`R; dkfjr djus dh lgefr nh vkSj mlds vkijkf/kd “kM+;a= esa ‘kjhd jgs ,slk dj vkius Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 120&ch ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tks fd esjs izlaKku esa gSA rhljk%& mDr fnukad le; o LFkku ij vFkok blls iwoZ vkius iwuepan fo’uksbZ ds lkFk mlds vkRegR;k djus ls iwoZ LosPNkiwoZd dqUnkyk ls ekjihV dj migfr dkfjr dhA ,slk dj vkius Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 323 ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tks fd esjs izlaKku esa gSA^^ Apparently, though in the order framing charges, a reference has been made to the alleged illicit relations between Bhanwari and Shrawan but in the charges which have been framed against the accused, no such fact has been mentioned. In the opinion of this Court, even if the prosecution story is accepted to be true at its highest, merely because of the allegation that Bhanwari and Shrawan were havingalleged illicit relations, it cannot be inferred that by that Act, an instigation was given to the deceased for committing suicide. In the opinion of this Court, even if the prosecution story is accepted to be true at its highest, merely because of the allegation that Bhanwari and Shrawan were havingalleged illicit relations, it cannot be inferred that by that Act, an instigation was given to the deceased for committing suicide. The complaint which has been filed by Hansraj in this case is rather to the effect that the deceased was done to the death i.e. he was murdered. No such evidence has been collected during the course of investigation. The best witness who could have known about commission of any illegal act by the accused leading to the commission of suicide by the deceased, is his son Manish, who as noted above has stated nothing to this effect. Rather he has stated about the cordial relations between the accused and the deceased. Resultantly, this Court is of the view that there is no material on the record of the case by which any logical conclusion can be arrived at that the petitioners in any manner tortured or pressurised the deceased or instigated him to commit the suicide. The charges under Sections 306 and 120B IPC which have been framed against the petitioners cannot thus be sustained. The remaining charge under Section 323 IPC which has been framed against the accused for an alleged assault on the deceased but as has been mentioned above, there is no such evidence on the record of the case to show that the accused had assaulted the deceased before his death. The post mortem does not show any mark of violence except the ligature mark. Admittedly, the ligature mark is as a result of suicidal hanging of the deceased. Thus, the order framing charges against the accused petitioners being absolutely illegal and contrary to the facts and material available on the record, is hereby quashed. In view of the above discussion, both these Revision Petitions succeed and the order dated 29.7.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Nagaur in Sessions Case No.22/2008 framing charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 306, 120B and 323 IPC, is hereby set aside. Stay petitions also stand disposed of.” 12. From the above order, it is clear that this Court has already given a finding to the effect that there is no material available against the co-accused persons viz. Stay petitions also stand disposed of.” 12. From the above order, it is clear that this Court has already given a finding to the effect that there is no material available against the co-accused persons viz. Bhanwari Devi, Shrawan and Laxman for framing of charges for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 120-B and 323 IPC. As observed earlier similar set of evidence is available on record against the petitioner also. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that when no evidence available against the petitioner for framing of charges for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 120-B and 323 IPC, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences in Sessions Case No.7/2015 will be gross injustice to him. 14. Consequently, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in Sessions Case No.7/2015 (State v. Siyaram & Ors.) before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaur are hereby dropped. Stay petition is disposed of. The copy of this order as well as the record of the trial court be sent to the trial court immediately.