IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT PRAHLAD Rai VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.63 of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated October 22, 2007 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 91 of 2007 by which charges were framed against accused respondents 2 to 4 under sections 498A, 323 and 304 B IPC and they have been discharged for the offence under section 302 IPC. Date of Order : January 7, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. R.S.Agarwal for the petitioner. Mr. Harendra Singh for the respondents. Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the complainant Prahlad Rai, against the order dated October 22, 2007 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 91 of 2007 by which charges were framed against accused respondents 2 to 4 under sections 498A, 323 and 304 B IPC and they have been discharged for the offence under section 302 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on August 2, 2007 an FIR was lodged by the complainant. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet for the offence under sections 498A, 323 and 304 B IPC before the concerned Magistrate, who has committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The Sessions Court transferred the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jhunjhunu. The learned trial court framed charge for the offence under sections 498 A, 323 and 304 B IPC vide order dated October 22, 2007. Hence this revision petition. 3. Mr. R.S.Agarwal, learned counsel for the complainant petitioner contended that before filing charge sheet the police got opinion from ADP, who opined that the offence under section 302 IPC is prima facie made out and the charge sheet was filed for this offence also. According to him there is ample evidence for the offence under section 302 IPC available on record but the trial court has not framed the charge in the alternative for the offence under section 302 IPC. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused respondents 2 to 4 Mr. Harendra Singh, opposed the arguments advanced by Mr. R.S. Agrawal. Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court rightly framed the charges against the accused respondents on the basis of the material available on record. This court in revisional power should not interfere with the order framing charge against the accused petitioners. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court overlooked the basic principels of criminal jurisprudence that in a criminal case charges should be framed in accordance with the material available in the charge sheet, but in the instant matter the trial court while framing charges overlooked the above principle and the charges have been framed in a mechanical manner. 7. The Apex Court in Om Wati vs. State AIR 2001 SC 1507 held as under : “ ... it would not be safe at this stage to deprive the prosecution in proving its case on the basis of direct evidence, the statement of the deceased claimed to be admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act and the other documents including the inquest report allegedly disclosing the infliction of injuries on the person of the deceased which resulted in his death. The acceptance of the opinion of the doctors, as incorporated in the post mortem report for the cause of death of deceased being hepatic failure following viral hapatites' cannot be accepted on its face value at this stage. Therefore the order of the High Court would be illegal and liable tobe set aside.” “ The Supreme Court reminded the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.” 8. For these reasons the revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. But at the same time, I direct the trial court that as and when the petitioner filed application under section 216 Cr.P.C. the same should be considered in accordance with law. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send the record of the case immediately to the trial court. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. Since the main case has been disposed, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/