1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Cr Revision Petition No. 619/2010 Saddam Vs State of Rajasthan 21.7.2010 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr RK Daga with Mr DD Khandelwal – for petitioner Mr Laxman Meena, PP - for the State Mr SK Singodia – for complainant BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 2.4.2010 framing charges against the petitioner, this criminal revision petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while framing charges against the petitioner for the offence under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC a charge for the offence under section 306 IPC was also framed against Ijjat with the aid of section 120-B IPC. The order of framing charges against the petitioner and Ijjat are self contradictory. For one and same incident, two different and contradictory charges cannot be framed. It is a simple case where deceased committed suicide on account of her illicit relations with Ijjat thus the police had rightly investigated the matter against Ijjat and found it to be a case under 2 section 306 IPC. In view of aforesaid, petitioner should have been discharged from the offence under section 498-A and 304-B IPC. This is more so when there is no evidence to frame charges for aforesaid offence against the petitioner. Reliance has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Yogesh versus State of Maharashtra” (2008) 10 SCC 394. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submits that pursuant to the FIR lodged against the petitioner, investigation was conducted. It is only to make prosecution case weak that a story for commission of offence under section 306 IPC was made out against Ijjat. So far as petitioner is concerned, he has been found involved in the matter and, accordingly, charge sheet was filed. Learned court below has framed charges against the petitioner though a charge for commission of offence under section 306 IPC has also been framed against Ijjat, however, Ijjat is not before this court to raise objections regarding framing of charges against him. This is more so when so far as petitioner is concerned, case is made out against him for commission of offence under section 498-A and 304-B IPC. Thus so far as framing of charges against the petitioner for the offence under section 498-A and 304-B IPC is concerned, there is no error therein. The charges have been framed against the petitioner and simultaneously against Ijjat also. If Ijjat is 3 aggrieved, he may challenge the order of framing charges but on the basis of that petitioner cannot make out a case in his favour. Reference has been made to the judgment of this court in the case of “Narendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan” 2010(1) RCC 184. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Perusal of the order of framing charges does not show that it has been passed against the petitioner without consideration of material available on record of the case. In view of aforesaid, I find no error in the same so far as framing of charges against the petitioner for the offence under section 498-A and 304-B IPC is concerned. So far as framing of charges for the offence under section 306 IPC against Ijjat is concerned, he is not before me and order against Ijjat can be looked into only when the matter is brought before this court and not otherwise. In view of aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. (MN Bhandari), J. bnsharma