Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case as well as the impugned order.
(2.) The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against whom charge has been framed for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Hanumangarh, H.Q. Nohar by order dated 29.5.2008.
(3.) Assailing the order framing charge against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the highest allegation of prosecution is accepted in its entirety, then there is no material on the record by which it can be inferred that the petitioner has abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. It is submitted that the highest case of the prosecution is that the petitioners had made.false allegations of theft against the family of the deceased. Merely by this, it cannot be inferred that the petitioners abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Smt. Vidhya.;