JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior counsel along with Mr. Pandey A.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 3. Heard Mr. Md. Hatim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand. 4. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 19.03.2019 passed in Cri. Misc. Application No. 1007/2018 (S.T. Case No. 113 of 2017) whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge been rejected and the case was fixed for framing of charge. The case arises out of Complaint Case No. 51 of 2007 said to be pending before the court of learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially First Information Report was instituted and submission of final form indicated defect of facts. The complainant filed a protest petition on 12.09.2006 and in the protest, prima-facie case for offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code was found and cognizance was taken. The learned counsel submits that the victim of the case had committed suicide as it is supported by a suicide note which was sent for forensic examination and accordingly, no case under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code was made out. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the complainant is the wife of the deceased and the deceased is the own brother of the petitioner no. 1 and brother-in-law of the petitioner no. 2. The learned counsel submits that a petition for discharge was filed which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 19.03.2019 which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no case for interference in the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioners is made out. He submits that there is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned order calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction in this proceeding. 2, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no case for interference in the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioners is made out. He submits that there is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned order calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction in this proceeding. The learned counsel has also submitted that the points which have been argued by the petitioners are matter of evidence and at this stage, the learned court below has passed a reasoned order indicating strong suspicion against the petitioners and has also indicated the reason for passing the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioners. The learned counsel has also submitted that altogether 11 inquiry witnesses were examined and the learned court below has passed a well speaking order as per law. The learned counsel for the state has supported the submissions of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the husband of the complainant died in the month of July, 2005. He was said to have been brought to RIMS Hospital, Ranchi on 11.07.2005 and he died during his treatment. Consequently, criminal case was registered under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code on 11.07.2005. However, the police submitted final form stating that there was defect of facts. The complainant filed the protest petition on 12.09.2006 and after inquiry, the learned court below found prima facie case under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. It further appears from the impugned order that only two accused persons namely, Harendra Kumar Singh and Sunita Devi appeared and the accused Anand Mohan @ Tan Singh did not appear and his case was split vide order dated 06.09.2018. 9. The learned court below considered the evidence of 11 enquiry witnesses who were examined from the side of the complainant and found that the handwriting expert was of the opinion that there was no characteristics difference beyond the range of natural variation and the suicide note was kept in the record. The learned court also recorded that one line such as, he was not found perfect as per desire of his elder brother, appeared to be added later on. The learned court also recorded that one line such as, he was not found perfect as per desire of his elder brother, appeared to be added later on. The learned court also recorded that the expert only examined the signature of the deceased and the language has not been examined. The learned court below also perused the post-mortem report and found that the cause of death was not stated as viscera was kept reserved, but abdomen was found slightly distended and nails were deeply cynosed. The learned trial court also recorded that when it was not a case of asphyxia, then deeply cynosed nails indicated only death due to poison. The learned trial court also considered the inquest report. 10. Considering the materials on record, the learned court below found that there was strong suspicion against the accused persons and accordingly, rejected the petition for discharge. 11. This court, after having gone through the impugned order dated 19.03.2019, does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order of rejection of discharge petition. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order considering the materials on record and no illegality or perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction. This Court further finds that an order dated 03.07.2019 has also been placed on record from where it appears that office was directed to issue summons upon the witnesses for evidence. However, the present stage of the case is not on record. 12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. 13. However, it is observed that dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of either parties before the learned court below. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 16. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the learned court below through ‘FAX/email’.