Case: BHAWNA BAI Vs. GHANSHYAM

3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:On 24.12.2015, the husband of the complainant-Gopal Saran at about 06.00 pm went saying to prepare food as he is going outside to plough the field and shall return by 09.00-10.00 pm. Even by 12.00 mid night, Gopal Saran did not return home; then his wife Bhawna Bai, appellant herein tried to contact him over his mobile; but he did not receive the call. The appellant informed her father-in-law who tried to search the deceased and there was no information about the deceased. On the next morning at about 08.00 am, the appellant-complainant and her family members came to know from the neighbours that Gopal Saran was lying in the tank//hose in the field of the first respondent-Ghanshyam. The appellant has alleged that when she tried to approach her husband then Ganesh s/o Mohanlal Kushwah prevented her going near her husband and locked her in a room and did not allow her to see her husband. The dead body of Gopal Saran was taken to government hospital. The appellant-complainant alleged that without informing her, post-mortem of her husband was conducted. Merg No.94 of 2015 was registered for investigation under Section 174 Crl.P.C.; but no case was registered against any person4. On 31.12.2015, the appellant made a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Khargaon and in spite of the same, no case was registered. Thereafter, the complainant-appellant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Kasrawad under Section 156(3) Crl.P.C. on 12.04.2016. The learned ACJM accepted the complaint and directed the Officer-in- Charge, P.S. Kasrawad to register the FIR under Section 302 IPC and proceed with the investigation. FIR was registered in Crime No.145 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Challenging the direction of ACJM to register a FIR, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar in Criminal Revision No.300051 of 2016. The said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.20165. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 have prayed for anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, West Nimad, Mandleswar vide order dated 10.09.2018. Being aggrieved, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed appeal before the High Court and the High Court had granted anticipatory bail to them vide order dated 19.09.2018. Against the grant of anticipatory bail, the appellant- complainant has filed SLP(Crl.) Diary No.39785/2018 before the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court by order dated 14.12.2018 has issued notice. In the meanwhile, charge sheet has been filed against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on 26.09.2018. Upon hearing the prosecution and also the respondents-accused, vide order dated 12.12.2018, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar has found that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and framed the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC6. Challenging the order of framing charges, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed revision before the High Court. Holding that, while framing charges, the court should apply the judicial mind and should give reasons in concise manner for framing charges and that the trial court has failed to apply its mind while framing charges, the High Court vide impugned order dated 25.02.2019 has quashed the charges against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and discharged them. Being aggrieved, the appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal.

Reasoning:
12. Though the circumstances alleged in the charge sheet are to be established during the trial by adducing the evidence, the allegations in the charge sheet show a prima facie case against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2. The circumstances alleged by the prosecution indicate that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused16. As discussed above, in the present case, upon hearing the parties and considering the allegations in the charge sheet, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The order dated 12.12.2018 framing the charges is not a detailed order. For framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen. As held in Knati Bhadra Shah and another v. State of West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722 , while exercising power under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required record his reasons for framing the charges against the accused. Upon hearing the parties and based upon the allegations and taking note of the allegations in the charge sheet, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and framed the charges against the accused- respondent Nos.1 and 2. While so, the High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the trial court framing the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the High Court, in our view, erred in quashing the charges framed against the accused. The impugned order cannot therefore be sustained and is liable to be set aside.