Criminal Revision No. 2983 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 58196 of 2010 & Criminal Revision No. 2983 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.12.2010 Kapil Sharma ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. U.S. Dhaliwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) Criminal Misc. No. 58196 of 2010 This is an application for placing on record the certified copy of impugned order, FIR, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., statement of Ram Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C and also statement of Anjana Sharma under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The application is allowed as prayed for. Copies of impugned order and other documents are taken on record as Annexures P-1 to P-4. Criminal Revision No. 2983 of 2010 The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby he charged the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 304-B IPC alternatively under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of deceased-Anu Sharma. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the impugned order no reason has been given for framing the charge under Criminal Revision No. 2983 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Section 302 IPC as according to allegations in the FIR after accused Kapil Sharma had a quarrel with Anu Sharma, she picked up an acid bottle used for cleaning toilet and drank it. He submits that in view of this, the investigating agency had presented the challan under Section 304-B IPC. However, trial court had framed alternative charge under Section 302 IPC. He has thus, prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and case be remanded back to the same court for decision afresh. Learned State counsel does not dispute the contention that from the order no reason for framing of alternative charge under Section 302 IPC is discernable. He, therefore, does not oppose the prayer for remanding of the case to the same court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is apparent that in the complaint lodged by father of the deceased, it was alleged that after the accused Kapil Sharma had quarrel with his daughter she picked up the acid bottle and drank the same. After investigation the investigating agency put challan under Section 304-B IPC. There can be no manner of doubt that the court has the power to frame alternative charge for a separate offence which an accused is suspected to have committed. However, from the perusal of the impugned order though reasons for framing charge under Section 304-B are made out, no reason appears to be there for framing alternative charge under Section 302 IPC. In view of above, impugned order dated 11.10.2010 is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the same court for decision afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Criminal Revision No. 2983 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Parties are directed to remain present before the trial court on 24.12.2010. December 14, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE