Criminal Revision No. 856 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 856 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.01.2010 Seeta Rani @ Ravina wife of Kuldeep Kumar @ Rinku r/o near Gaushala, Khanna, at present r/o 681, Street No. 5, Old Bazar, Sahnewal, Punjab. ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, is directed, against the order, dated 17.02.09, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which, it framed charge, against the accused-petitioner, and his co-accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 28.04.08, in the area of Rohno, Dimple Rani, died, on account of burn injuries i.e. otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of her marriage, and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment, by Criminal Revision No. 856 of 2009 2 Ashok Kumar, husband, and Seeta Rani @ Ravina, petitioner, being her sister-in-law, in connection with the demand of dowry. Accordingly, the first information report, was registered, against them, on the basis of the statements of the complainant. 3. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence, on record, charge, under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, was framed, against the accused. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed, by the revision-petitioner. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the charge, was framed, against the accused-petitioner, a married sister-in- law of the deceased only, on the basis of copy of the CD, which was a secondary evidence. He has further submitted that, there was no other material, on the record, to form an opinion, that the accused-petitioner, alongwith her co-accused, harassed the deceased, soon before her death, in connection with the demand of dowry. He has further submitted that, no doubt, charge, could be framed, even if, strong suspicion existed. He has further submitted that, in the instant case, even strong suspicion, did not exist, against the petitioner. He has further submitted that the trial Court, thus, illegally framed the charge, under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner, though, no prima-facie case, was made out, against her. 7. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, has Criminal Revision No. 856 of 2009 3 submitted that besides the CD, there were statements of Mohinder Pal, complainant, father of the deceased, Pardeep Kumar brother of the deceased, and, Nirmla Rani mother of the deceased, to the effect, that the deceased died, within 7 years of her marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances, and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, by the accused- petitioner, and her co-accused. He has further submitted that, at the time of framing the charge, the Court, is not required, to go deep, into the merits of the case, and, if a prima-facie case, is made out, from the allegations, contained in the first information report, the report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as also the documents submitted therewith, those can be said to be sufficient, to frame charge. He has further submitted that the order impugned, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that at the time of framing the charge, the Court, is not required to scrutinize the material, placed on record, so meticulously or in the manner, as it is required to do, at the time of final decision of the case. At that time, the Court, is required to scrutinize the material, placed on record, to the extent, to find out, as to whether, a prima-facie case, was made out, against the accused, for the commission of certain offences or not. Admittedly, the deceased died, within 7 years of her marriage, in the Criminal Revision No. 856 of 2009 4 house of her in-laws, otherwise than under normal circumstances i.e. by burn injuries. Two ingredients, required for constituting the offence, under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, were prima-facie established, from the record. The third ingredient, for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, as to whether, the deceased, was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her death, was also prima-facie established, from the statements of Mohinder Pal, complainant, the father of the deceased, Pardeep Kumar brother of the deceased, and, Nirmala Devi mother of the deceased. They, in their statements, in clear-cut terms, stated that the accused-petitioner, used to harass and beat the deceased, in connection with the demand of dowry. It was not that only, on the basis of copy of the CD, that the charge, was framed, against the accused-petitioner. The order impugned, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. 9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-856 of 2009, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 14.01.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE