CRM No. M 8351 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 8351 of 2011 Date of decision: 22.03.2011 Kamla and others ........ Petitioners Versus Prem Lata .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul (P2), vide which, the petitioners were summoned for committing offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and further order dated 27.1.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Narnaul (P3 and P4), vide which, the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 15.11.2008 has been dismissed. Prayer is also made for quashing of the order dated 15.02.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Narnaul (P5), vide which, the charge has been framed against the petitioners as well as the charge sheet dated 15.02.2011 (P6). CRM No. M 8351 of 2011 2 While challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is a case of suicide. The deceased was a patient of high blood sugar and it was a hereditary disease in the family of the deceased. Due to the diabetes, the vital parts and organs of the deceased were badly damaged and the deceased had lost her eye sight almost completely. Further, she was suffering from tuberculosis. As such, being fed up with her life, she committed suicide. Heard. Admittedly, the deceased died due to burn injuries. As per the allegations in the complaint, complainant Prem Lata who is the sister of the deceased and is married to the elder brother of the husband of the deceased, stated that whenever, her sister Suman used to come home, she used to say that the accused persons are subjecting her to cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry. Accused persons also used to humiliate her sister Suman and also used to beat her for bringing insufficient dowry. On the fateful day, when she had gone in the neighbourhood for some work, she heard noises of her sister. On hearing noises, she came back to the house and saw that accused persons had caught hold of the hands of Suman and was pouring kerosene oil and thereafter put her on fire by lighting a matchbox. Thus, the complainant is the eye witness of the incident. Charges have been framed. It is, therefore, not possible to state at this stage that it is a case of suicide. For framing of charge, only prima facie case has to be seen. Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) CRM No. M 8351 of 2011 3 Pvt. Ltd v. Sanjay Choudhary and others reported as 2008(4) CRC (Criminal) 640 in para 10, held as under:- ”10. After analysing the terminology used in the three pairs of sections it was held that despite the differences there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of a prima facie case is to be applied.” 11. The present case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. That being so, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed.” Moreover, the revision petition has already been dismissed. It is well settled proposition of law that second revision is not maintainable under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. The present petition is nothing but a second revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. No doubt, it is also well settled that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be entertained in case of miscarriage of justice or misuse of process of law. However, no such grounds has been raised which may enable this Court to come to the conclusion that any injustice has been caused. Allegations in the present case are serious. A lady of about 30 years has died due to burn injuries. There is an eye witness to the CRM No. M 8351 of 2011 4 occurrence. As such, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 22.03.2011 mohan