ORDER :

1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed against the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, whereby application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the charge under Section 306 of IPC has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned trial Court without considering the entire material available in the charge sheet on its face value has framed charges against the applicant (husband of the deceased) under Section 306 of IPC. Upon perusal of statement of the witnesses recorded by the police it is apparent that the deceased had committed theft of Rs.2,500/- of his uncle-in-law and when she was interrogated, she admitted her guilt and due to said guilt mind, she consumed poison and therefore provision under Section 306 of IPC would not be attracted. He contended that the continuation of trial against the applicant will be misuse of process of law.

3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that there is specific allegation against the applicant of quarreling, assaulting the deceased/wife on trivial issue and further allegation is that she was being assaulted, abused by the applicant stating that she may bring the property of her share in partition from her parents. From the statement of witnesses, it is apparent that there is allegation of continuous ill-treatment, harassment as also assault and therefore, learned trial Court upon considering the entire material available in the charge sheet has not committed any error in framing charge under Section 306 of IPC against the applicant. Ground raised and submission of learned counsel for the applicant in this revision can be appreciated during trial by the trial Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed along with this revision which are copies of impugned order as also documents forming part of charge sheet submitted by the police after completion of investigation.

5. Along with the charge sheet, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Surednra Kumar Rana (father of the deceased), Samari Rana (mother of the deceased), Parikshit Rana (Sarpanch of the village) and Madan Rana (uncle of applicant) are also annexed.

6. In case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles to be borne in mind for proper exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or 482 CrPC, as the case may be, particularly in the context of quashing of charge. The principles in Amit Kapoor's case (supra) were recently quoted with approval in case of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari & another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1057. One of the principles on which revisional jurisdiction can be exercised is that if the allegations are patently so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. Relevant principles culled out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor (supra) read thus:-

“27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.

x x x

27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence a