JUDGMENT

SUNIL B.SHUKRE,J. - Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. This application moved under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by the applicants for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet no. 114/2017 registered as Sessions Trial No. 363/2017 pending before Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur which is a Special Court for differently abled persons, senior citizens and marginalised Sec. of society, has a backdrop of certain facts which raise a question - whether it is permissible for the accused like the applicants to invoke inherent power of High Court under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. after their application seeking discharge under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. is rejected ? The background facts would have to be considered first, in our endevour to answer the question. The facts of the case, insofar as they are necessary for the purpose of this application, are stated in ensuing paragraphs along with our observations and findings.

4. The applicants, who are accused nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7, had filed an application under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge from the criminal case that has been filed against them and which is registered as Sessions Trial No. 363/2017 for the offences punishable under Ss. 304B, 498A and 306 read with Sec. 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and also under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is also an admitted fact that their discharge application filed under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nagpur by her order passed on 9/9/2019. The order of rejection of the discharge application of the applicants was challenged by the applicants when they preferred a Criminal Revision Application No. 4/2020. But, this application, after grant of hearing to the applicants and the other side, was rejected by learned Single Judge of this Court, as he then was, on 27/1/2021.

5. The learned Single Judge has categorically observed that when it is found that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further against the accused, the order of rejecting the discharge application could not be faulted with. The learned Single Judge has further observed that sufficiency or insufficiency of the material could not be a factor to be decided at the stage of framing of charge and what is to be seen by the Court while framing of the charge is whether or not there are allegations in the prosecution case against the accused. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that evidence at the stage of framing of the charge may not be sufficient to record conviction but, that is not the criteria while framing of the charge and even grave suspicion is enough for framing of the charge.

6. The reasons stated by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the Revision Application of the applicants are absolutely in accordance with the settled principles of law. Way back in the year 1977, in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh [AIR 1977 SC 2018], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles of law, on the basis of which jurisdiction under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Sessions Court. In paragraph no. 4 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there is a strong suspicion, which leads the Court to think that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there are not sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is a stage where it is not necessary for the Court to consider as to whether or not the evidence c