IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR RAVI SHARMA AND ANR. VS. STATE OF RAJ. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 433 of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated April 15, 2008 of Addl. Sessions Judge Kotputli framing charge against the petitioners for offences under sections 498- A and 304 B IPC in case FIR No. 571 of 2007 Police Station Kotputli. Date of Order : December 17,2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Ramesh Kumawat for the petitioners. Mr.Sanjai Mahala for the complainant. Mr. B.N. Sandu, PP for the State BY THE COURT : This revision petition arises out of the order dated April 15, 2008 of Addl. Sessions Judge., Kotputli in a Sessions case FIR No.571 of 2007 framing charge against the petitioners for the offences under sections 498-A and 304 B IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Ram Kishan Bhardwaj, lodged FIR with the Police Station Kotputli on September 11, 2007 at 15.35 hrs. in which it was stated that his niece Neetu (Anita) daughter of Puran Chand, married with Ravi Kumar on July 7, 2006. After the marriage her in-laws gave cruel treatment on account of less dowry and they demanded Indica Car in place of Motor Cycle. They gave threatening for not to contact her personally or to make telephone call. When they tried to contact them with the mediator, they all threatened them over telephone not to contact them. On September 11, 2007 Neetu was murdered by all of them. They made telephone call to them that Neetu is ill. They came to know that Neetu was killed by administering poison. The police upon this report registered case for the offences under sections 498A and 304 B IPC. The police filed challan before the concerned Magistrate, who committed it to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge Kotputli. The trial court after hearing both the sides framed charge against the accused petitioners by his order dated April 15, 2008 for the offences under sections 498 A and 304 B IPC. Against the said order this revision petition has been preferred. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Ramesh Kumawat, Advocate and Sanjay Mahala for the complainant and Mr. B.N. Sandu, Public Prosecutor at length. Mr. Kumawat contended that the petitioner No.1, who is husband of the deceased first went to Hospital at Kotputli and thereafter at Jaipur. During this period he made telephone call to his father in law that his daughter is ill but according to the version of the complainant they reached at court complex. The learned counsel stated that if they have administered poison to her why they will take her to first Hospital at Kotputli and then to Jaipur. This fact falsify the story of the prosecution. The learned counsel further stated that the police handed over the body to the father of the petitioner and at the time of cremation the petitioner was present at cremation ground. The learned stated that all these facts go to show that the trial court wrongly framed charge against them, which is liable to be set aside. Mr. Kumawat contended that the court has neither given reasoned order nor speaking order. Mr. Kumawat relied upon the judgment of Ramchandra vs. State of M.P. (2001 (2) Supreme (Cr.) 87. 4. On the other hand Mr. B.N. Sandu, Public Prosecutor drawn my attention to Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. read as under : “227. Discharge.- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 228. Framing of charge .- (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which - (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report ; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall framed in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.” 5. Accordingly Section 227 of Cr.P.C. provides that if upon consideration of the record of the case, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. But no reasons are necessary to be recorded when the charges are framed against the accused persons. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Saha vs. State of West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722 held that there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge. 7. Mr. Sandu has further contended that at the stage of passing the order in terms of section 227 of the Code, the court has merely to peruse the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused if upon consideration, the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, the Judge must proceed to frame charge in terms of section 228 of the Code. Only in a case where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone the Court can discharge the accused. The court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of evidence and material placed before it at this stage. 8. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Supdt. nnd Rembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja (AIR 1980 SC 52)reminded the courts that at the initial stage of framing of charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The Court has therefore to consider the question of framing the charges on general considerations of the material placed fore it by the investigating agency. At this stage the truth,veracity and effect of the judgment which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding an accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. Even on the basis of a strong suspicion founded on materials before it, the Court can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that even be justified in framing the charges against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by them. 9. He has also relied upon the judgment of judgment in State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh (AIR 1977 SC 2018)in which their Lordships of the Apex Court held as under : “If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under S. 227 or S. 228 then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under section 228 and not under s. 227.” 10. He has further relied upon Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1956 SC 116) 11. Mr. Sandu, relied upon Section 216 Cr.P.C. Which provides that the court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. Section 216 reads as under : “ 216. Court may alter charge .- (1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused. (3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge. (4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary. (5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction had been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.” 12. He has also relied upon the case of Smt. Om Wati and another vs. State through Delhi Administration (AIR 2001 SC 1507) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under : “ The Supreme Court reminded the High Court 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 and unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.” 13. For these reasons I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated April 15, 2008 framing charge against the accused petitioners passed by the trial court and revision petition stands dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Stay 14. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/