ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner challenging the order passed on the application under Section 226 of Cr.P.C. by Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in S.C.No.53/2016 dated 6.10.2017. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the daughter of the complainant committed suicide by hanging herself on 16.1.2016 in between 7.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. After noticing the same they came to know that the deceased used to talk with some one over the phone and she used to sent messages. It is further alleged in the complaint that the deceased has become pregnant as the deceased was in touch with one person and it is the mobile number of the accused. On the basis of the said complaint a case was registered and after investigation the charge sheet was filed as against the accused-petitioner. At this juncture the accused-petitioner filed an application under Section 226 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the charges levelled against him. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge after considering all the materials dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the same the accused-petitioner is before this Court. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material as against the accused-petitioner and there is nothing to suggest that it is the accused-petitioner who is the cause for pregnancy of the deceased, even the DNA analysis test which has been conducted to ascertain the status of the foetus, it has given its report that the sample blood sent in item No.2 in respect of the accused-petitioner is excluded from being biological father and source of DNA of the foetus of the Padmakshi sent in item No.1. By relying upon the same he further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused-petitioner has sexually assaulted her and she became pregnant and as she has became pregnant prior to the marriage she committed suicide. By relying upon the same he further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused-petitioner has sexually assaulted her and she became pregnant and as she has became pregnant prior to the marriage she committed suicide. He also by referring to the suicidal note further submitted that the said suicidal note also clearly goes to show that the deceased was having love with one Rajesh since three years and the said aspect was also known by the members of the family of the deceased, but the neighbour Umesh Sanna Kumbri was not happy and he used to ill-treat her and the said Umesh Sanna kumbri also used to use bad words against her and he also used to tell her that he is going to inform the said Rajesh that she is not a good girl. He further submitted that the reasons stated in the suicidal note is that it is the Umesh Sanna kumbri is responsible for the said death and as he was ill-treating her. This fact also clearly indicates the fact that the accused-petitioner is in no way concerned to the death of the deceased. He further submitted that the trial Court without considering the material placed on record has wrongly dismissed the said petition. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to discharge the accused-petitioner. 5. Percontra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the records including the call details clearly goes to show that there were frequent calls made by the deceased and even the statement of the father-complainant also indicates that the accused used to call her and the deceased also used to tell the said fact to the complainant. He further submitted that the said mobile has also been seized and the call details have also been collected to show that the accused was in touch with the deceased prior to her death. He further submitted that there is a prima facie material to connect the accused to the facts of the case on hand. He further submitted that the evidence which is intended to be discarded by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is a matter which has to be appreciated only at the time of trial, not at this pre-matured stage. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. He further submitted that the evidence which is intended to be discarded by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is a matter which has to be appreciated only at the time of trial, not at this pre-matured stage. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and I have also gone through the contents of the documents. 7. Before going to consider the factual aspects of the said case, I want to place it on record what are the consideration which the Court has to keep in its mind at the time of considering the application under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and it is also well settled principles of law that the standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording the finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction, but the matter if at all consider on its face value and the evidence which is going to be adduced even though if it is not rebutted by the defence, then under such circumstances if there is no case or no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial, the Court has to discharge the accused. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh reported in AIR 1977 SC 2018 . 8. Keeping in view the above aspect it is also well settled principle of law that whenever the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has to be considered, then under such circumstances the Court should not hold the mini trial and then adjudicate the matter before it i.e. the Court has to consider in the light as to whether there is a prima facie material to frame the charge as against the accused. 9. 9. Keeping in view this aspect into the matter let me consider whether the contentions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner specifies the above said proposition of law by going through the death note and DNA test. Though the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be prima facie there are some variation in the evidence of the complainant the call details have also been produced in this behalf to show that frequent conversation was also there with the deceased and the accused immediately prior to death and even the complaint if it is carefully perused it indicates that the deceased has been sexually assaulted and there used to be frequent calls to her over the phone and in that light she committed suicide. So when that material is available to show that frequent calls were there and she has been sexually assaulted, then under such circumstances, I feel that at this stage without there being any proper appreciation of the evidence it cannot be held that there is no material as against the accused-petitioner. Where court finds that there is ground for presuming that accused has committed offence it shall frame charge. The contentions which have been raised are the matters which requires to be considered and appreciated at the time of trial not at this pre-matured stage. 10. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the accused-petitioner has not made out any good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court. I have perused the order of the trial Court. The trial Court after considering all these material facts and the contentions has rightly dismissed the application. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.