ORDER : 1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed against the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, whereby application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the charge under Section 306 of IPC has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned trial Court without considering the entire material available in the charge sheet on its face value has framed charges against the applicant (husband of the deceased) under Section 306 of IPC. Upon perusal of statement of the witnesses recorded by the police it is apparent that the deceased had committed theft of Rs.2,500/- of his uncle-in-law and when she was interrogated, she admitted her guilt and due to said guilt mind, she consumed poison and therefore provision under Section 306 of IPC would not be attracted. He contended that the continuation of trial against the applicant will be misuse of process of law. 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that there is specific allegation against the applicant of quarreling, assaulting the deceased/wife on trivial issue and further allegation is that she was being assaulted, abused by the applicant stating that she may bring the property of her share in partition from her parents. From the statement of witnesses, it is apparent that there is allegation of continuous ill-treatment, harassment as also assault and therefore, learned trial Court upon considering the entire material available in the charge sheet has not committed any error in framing charge under Section 306 of IPC against the applicant. Ground raised and submission of learned counsel for the applicant in this revision can be appreciated during trial by the trial Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed along with this revision which are copies of impugned order as also documents forming part of charge sheet submitted by the police after completion of investigation. 5. Along with the charge sheet, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Surednra Kumar Rana (father of the deceased), Samari Rana (mother of the deceased), Parikshit Rana (Sarpanch of the village) and Madan Rana (uncle of applicant) are also annexed. 6. 5. Along with the charge sheet, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Surednra Kumar Rana (father of the deceased), Samari Rana (mother of the deceased), Parikshit Rana (Sarpanch of the village) and Madan Rana (uncle of applicant) are also annexed. 6. In case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles to be borne in mind for proper exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or 482 CrPC, as the case may be, particularly in the context of quashing of charge. The principles in Amit Kapoor's case (supra) were recently quoted with approval in case of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari & another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1057. One of the principles on which revisional jurisdiction can be exercised is that if the allegations are patently so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. Relevant principles culled out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor (supra) read thus:- “27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. x x x 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. x x x 27.15. x x x 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.” 7. In case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT Delhi), reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Para-25 as under:- “25.It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (See: Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Ors, (1990) 4 SCC 76 ).” 8. In case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659 , the Supreme Court explaining the meaning of the word 'presume' has observed thus:- “32. ...if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has commuted the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage". 9. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage". 9. In case of Supriya Jain vs. State of Haryana & another, reported in (2023) 7 SCC 711 , relying on its earlier decision in case of Amit Kapoor (supra) has observed thus:- “18. Applying the broad principles as enunciated by this Court, we hold that it is not one of those rare cases where the uncontroverted allegations appearing from the materials on record notwithstanding, it can successfully be contended that even no prima facie opinion can be formed pointing to commission of any offence by the petitioner. It is trite that the conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from the offence to do which the conspiracy is entered into and that such an offence, if actually committed, would be the subject-matter of a separate charge. The allegations that the petitioner was found counting the cash received by the principal accused from the second respondent in the presence of a listed witness and that she conspired with her sister, the principal accused, to cheat and defraud the second respondent, persuade us to record that involvement of the petitioner, howsoever limited, cannot be ruled out at this stage and, therefore, the trial ought to be permitted to proceed and she obliged to stand trial. 19. For the reasons aforesaid, we uphold the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the petition under section 482 CrPC. The trial court may proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment and order which is for the purpose of a decision on the appeal.” 10. Further, at the stage of charge, this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not required to go for mini trial as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 584 , in Para-7, which reads thus:- “7. We are of the view that the High Court could not have conducted a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge, and that too in revision filed against the order framing charges. We are of the view that the High Court could not have conducted a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge, and that too in revision filed against the order framing charges. We are of the view that it is impossible to state at this stage that no case could possibly be made out for ultimate conviction of Respondent No.2. This being the case, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial Court.” 11. From the above decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is appearing that while dealing with revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC seeking for quashing of charge framed against an accused, the Court is not expected to consider and conduct a roving inquiry into the material on record, and is only expected to see whether the offence as alleged was prima facie made out before the trial Court for the purpose of framing of charge. In other words, for interfering with the charge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, pre-requisite is that there is no prima facie material for framing charge. Interference at this stage should be only in rare cases. 12. In the case at hand, perusal of the statements of above witnesses would show that there are allegations against the applicant that he used to assault, abused his wife/deceased continuously as also for brining the property from her parents house in partition and it is alleged that because of this act of the applicant, the deceased took extreme step of committing suicide by consuming poison in her matrimonial house. 13. At this stage, the Court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of the evidence & material on record and is only required to see whether a prima facie case has been made out or not. Mini trial is not permissible at this stage. Nonetheless, the allegations levelled against applicant are true or not, is the matter which cannot be determined at the stage of framing of charge and any such determination can take place only after conclusion of trial. However, in light of material available in record, at this stage it cannot be concluded that framing of charge against applicant by the Court below is either bad in law or abuse of process of law or without any material. 14. However, in light of material available in record, at this stage it cannot be concluded that framing of charge against applicant by the Court below is either bad in law or abuse of process of law or without any material. 14. Resultantly, the criminal revision being bereft of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. However, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court are only for the purposes of deciding present revision petition against the order framing charge and shall have no bearing on the merits of case during trial. Applicant will be at liberty to raise all the grounds as are available to him, including the grounds raised in this revision petition, and the trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law.