IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT JAGDISH PRASAD TAILOR AND ORS VS. STATE OF RAJ. S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.731 of 2005 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated July 19, 2005 of Special Judge Women Atrocities Dowry Cases Jaipur City in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2005 framing charge against the accused petitioners underr sections 498 A and 304 B IPC. Date of Order : Feb. 13 , 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Reenesh Gupta, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwani Garg, for the respondent. Mr. Hari Bareth, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners Jagdish Prasad, Narmada Devi and Prahlad, against the order dated July 19, 2005 of Special Judge Women Atrocities Dowry Cases Jaipur City in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2005 framing charge against the accused petitioners under sections 498 A and 304 B IPC. Vide order dated August 24, 2005 this Court stayed further proceedings against petitioner Prahlad in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2005 before the trial court and this court directed the trial court for trial against the remaining accused i.e. Jagdish Prasad and Smt. Narmada Devi. The trial court vide order dated September 19, 2008 after recording statements of witnesses, and hearing both the sides, acquitted Narbada Devi and Jagdish Prasad. In these circumstances, the revision petition by Narbada Devi and Jagdish Prasad has become infructuous. Instant revision petition is only by accused petitioner Prahlad. On March 19, 2007, the State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor, moved application for vacation of the order of this Court dated August 24, 2005. The application for vacation of the order dated August 24, 2005, was rejected by this court on August 16, 2007 and directed for listing the case for hearing after four weeks. Thereafter the case could not be taken up for one or the other reason and only on Feb. 10, 2009, arguments were completed by both the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of Parcha Bayan of Smt. Neetu, given at SMS Hospital Jaipur at 9.10 p.m. On October 1, 2004, FIR was lodged by Roshan Singh, at Police Station Bhatta Basti Jaipur on October 1, 2004 at 11.50 p.m. for offence under section 498 A IPC. On October 6, 2004 Neetu died and the police added section 304 B IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused petitioner Prahlad, co-accused Jagdish Narmada Devi, who are father and mother of petitioner Prahalad under sections 498 A and 304 B IPC. On July 19, 2005 the trial court framed charge against the accused petitioner and co-accused Jagdish Prasad and Prahlad for offence under sections 498A and 304 B IPC. Aginst this order of the trial court present revision petition has been filed, as mentioned above. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Prahalad after making reference of sections 498 A and 304 B IPC, argued that the trial court at the time of framing of charge did not consider that there is no material available on record to meet the ingredient of section 498 A IPC. Counsel argued that on the basis of Parcha Bayan and statement of Neetu recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., which is dying declaration no charge can be framed under section 498 A IPC against the accused petitioner Prahlad. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed the certified copy of the order dated September 19, 2008 of the trial court wherein co- accused Smt. Narbada Devi and Jagdish Prasad have been acquitted of the charge under sections 498 A and 304 B IPC. The learned counsel argued that in these circumstances framing charge against the accused petitioner may be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Ashwani Garg, and Mr. Hari Bareth, Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments advanced by Mr. Reenesh Gupta. Mr. Hari Bareth, Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court rightly framed the charge against the accused petitioner 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 petitioner. Learned counsel, however, has been very cautious not to argue on merits and rightly so because any comment by me on the merits is likely to prejudice the case of the accused or the prosecution. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This court in Om Prakash and another vs. State of Rajasthan,S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.1282 of 2003, decided on January 22, 2009 laid down following principles in regard to framing of charge by the courts below : (i) No reasons are required to be recorded when the charges are framed against the accused persons. (ii) In cases instituted otherwise than on a police report the Magistrate is required to write an order showing the reasons only if he is to discharge the accused. (iii)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. (iv) the High Courts to be loathe in interfering at the stage of framing the charges against the accused. (v) At the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. (vi) It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. (vii) At the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (viii) If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. (ix) 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. (x) 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. 6. 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.” 7. For these reasons the revision petition is dismissed and the trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Since the main case has been dismissed , the stay application also stands disposed of and the interim order dated August 24,2005 is also vacated. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/