16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 475/2008 ABHISHEKH KHURANA & ORS .... Petitioner Through Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M.L.Yadav, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP. Mr. Vivek Sood and Mr. J.N. Satija, Advocates for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 09.07.2010 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28th May, 2008 directing framing of charge under Sections 306/406/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned order passed by the Additional Session Judge is a fairly detailed order referring to several judgments, which were cited before him. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, complainant and the State. 3. Preeti Verma, the deceased was about 24 years of age when she was engaged to the petitioner No.1, Abhishekh Khurana in a ceremony held on 8th July, 2006. The marriage was fixed for 20th January, 2007. Preeti Verma committed suicide on 6th December, 2006. In the charge sheet filed by the police, it is stated as under:- “On 26.11.06, Abhishek and his mother Kanta Khurana and his father and Mausa (uncle) Mr. Chawla and his aunt Mrs. Sudesh Chawla and her daughter Geeta Jaitley had come at our house, they took food and some cash etc. were given to them, they left Rs. 21,000/-, at their own for the clothes etc. of marriage and had taken all the remaining items and cash. Before leaving, they said that very very insufficient items have been given. Abhishek’s father and mother and Abhishek said that we are not saying anything here, but we will discuss at home and tell you that this relation will be made or not. From that day, Abhishek started making phone to Preety every day and said that he does not want to keep this relation because you have not given according to our status. Preety asked here that I will give you my salary, but Abhishek said that if you want to marry me then purchase a Maruti Swift by next Sunday, otherwise I will not say yes for the marriage, nor I will return the items and will also not bring the Barat on 20.1.07. He talked this on the night of 5.12.06 at about 10 p.m. and again on 6.12.06 from 7.30 a.m. to 8 a.m. Preety did not go at her work on that day, she was crying and told all this to me and said mummy, how you will live, my would be husband and Mother-in-law and Father-in-law have harassed me that I do not want to live any anymore, she asked me to leave along. I asked her repeatedly not to worry. At about 11.30 a.m., Preety asked me to go at Bank and return all the items given by boy’s family and forgive me. I went to bank and when I returned at about 12 noon, I noticed that door was bolted from inside, I went on first floor with the help of stairs and opened the bolted door and entered in the house, where I saw that my daughter Preety Verma was hanging with fan with her duppata around the neck, I opened the door and made noise, on which Arora Sardar Ji came and they took Preety to Saroj hospital, where doctors declared her Brought Dead.” 4. In the charge sheet it is also mentioned that at the time of engagement about 200 persons had attended the engagement ceremony and Rs.3, 00,000/- were spent. It is stated that cash and jewellery items were given on several occasions on Karva Chauth and Diwali etc. 5. Some e-mails exchanged between the deceased Preeti Verma and her brother Manish may be noticed. It is stated by the prosecution that these e-mails refer to demand of dowry as words like “greedy stupid family” with reference to the petitioner’s family have been used. The prosecution states that the brother of the deceased wanted that the marriage should be called off because of demand of dowry. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that e-mails should be read in a different line and not in a manner as stated by the prosecution. 7. This is not the stage to examine the evidence in depth and detail. The allegations made against the petitioner in the charge sheet have been quoted above. The prosecution has proved and established the said allegations by evidence. Evidence is yet to be recorded. I do not think that at this stage it can be said that on the basis of the allegations made by the witnesses, no charge under Sections 306/406/34 Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code can be framed. 8. A case in which there is a strong suspicion as to the commission of the offence is made out against the accused then the charge must be framed. The Supreme Court in Sarabjit Singh versus State of Punjab,(2009) 16 SCC 46, observed as under: “2. The observation of this Court in MCD and other decisions following the same is that mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose. Different standards are required to be applied at different stages. Whereas the test of prima facie case may be sufficient for taking cognizance of an offence at the stage of framing of charge, the court must be satisfied that there exists a strong suspicion. While framing charge in terms of Section 227 of the Code, the court must consider the entire materials on record to form an opinion that the evidence if unrebutted would lead to a judgment of conviction.” 9. Thus, if the court finds that the material provided by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence is sufficient, then it can frame charges. It is not a stage where the court evaluates the credibility of the evidence. In State versus S. Bangarappa, (2001) 1 SCC 369, the Supreme Court observed as under: “18. Learned Single Judge then proceeded to discuss the merits of the evidence in this case. He made detailed reference to the materials placed by the prosecution for supporting the charge. When it was contended by the Solicitor General of India that such a detailed analysis at this stage was unwarranted Shri Kapil Sibal pointed out that even the trial court did the same thing for deciding whether the charge should be framed or not. It is true that the trial court should have avoided discussing the materials in such detail when it has chosen to frame charge. This Court has stated in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B.3 that when a trial court decides to frame charge it is not necessary to record reasons thereof. We extract the relevant observations from that decision: (SCC Headnote) “If the trial court decides to frame a charge there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the trial Judge has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report/ and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. * * * If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, there is no need to further burden the already burdened trial courts with such extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays.” 19. Learned Single Judge considered the statement of CW 36 (Annappa) and CW 37 (Puttappa) and a score of other witnesses cited by the prosecution. The High Court then entered upon a finding that it is not safe to rely on the statement of some of those witnesses. Learned Single Judge undertook the said exercise on the ground that the trial court also discussed the prosecution case at length to reach the prima facie finding that the sale deeds in the names of Annappa and Puttappa are benami transactions. He reached the finding that the trial court had gone wrong in accepting the statements of the above witnesses. 20. Shri Harish Salve addressed arguments to show that the purchases made by the respondent in the names of Annappa and Puttappa are all benami transactions and all such properties are actually the properties of the respondent. He referred to other materials for supporting his contention. Shri Kapil Sibal, on the other hand, made an endeavour to show that those properties cannot be counted in the account of the respondent. 21. Time and again this Court has pointed out that at the stage of framing charge the court should not enter upon a process of evaluating the evidence by deciding its worth or credibility. The limited exercise during that stage is to find out whether the materials offered by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence are sufficient for the court to proceed further (vide State of M.P. v. Dr Krishna Chandra Saksena). 22. We have no doubt that the materials which the prosecution enumerated are sufficient to frame the charge for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.” 10. The revision petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of the disposal of the present revision petition and will not be binding on the trial court. SANJIV KHANNA, J. JULY 09, 2010 NA/VKR