Back
High Court Of Delhi
RAJESH MEHTA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 10 of 2001
Decided On : 07/27/2001
accused might have abetted suicide of his wife, additional charge under Section 306 of IPC also could be framed against him by virtue of Section 221 of Cr.P.C., in exercising its power under Section 397 of Cr.P.C — Indian Penal Code, i860, Sections 304B, 306 & 498.
Held:
On the basis of the charge sheet filed against the petitioner, statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code and other material on record, it prima facie appears that the petitioner might haw abetted the suicide of his wife and as such, an alternative charge under Section 306 IPC also ought to have been framed against him.
It is true that the State has not challenged the impugned order nor has filed a dial-lan under Section 306 IPC, but the law does not restrict the powers of the Court to frame charges under appropriate provisions on the basis of the allegations made against an accused. The Revisional Court while exercising its powers under Section 397 of the Code is under a duty to satisfy itself with regard to the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding or order passed by a subordinate Court and issue appropriate directions. thereforee, this Court being satisfied that a charge under Section 306 IPC also ought to have been framed by virtue of Section 221 of the Code is well within its powers to order accordingly.
The prayer of the petitioner to set aside the impugned order and discharge him of the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC cannot be allowed and rather an alternative charge under Section 306 IPC also is required to be framed against him.
The Trial Court directed to frame an alternative charge against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC also and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law.
Sections 227, 228 & 397 — Discharge of accused — Revision against framing of charge — If there is some material on record connecting the accused with the offence charged of revisional court would not interfere with the order framing of charge.
The law in regard to orders wider Sections 227 and 22S of the Code as laid down in different decisions is that the prosecution must be given opportunity to lead its evidence and establish its allegations against an accused if there exists a strong suspicion that the accused might have committed the offence.
A discharge under Section 227 of the Code is permitted only in those cases where the Court is almost certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in a conviction and as such, feels that the time of the Court need not be wasted by holding a Vial. The use of words in Section 227 of the Code "The Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused" clearly conveys that at the stage of framing charge, the Court is neither required to hold any elaborate inquiry nor should delve deep into various aspects of the case. Sufficient grounds to proceed means some material available on record, which prompts the Court for holding the trial and give proper opportunity to the prosecution to lead evidence and establish its allegations. thereforee, if there is some material on record, which connects the accused with the crime, the charge has to be framed under Section 228 of the Code. Revisional Court should not ordinarily interfere at the initial stage of framing the charge merely on the hypothesis; imagination and far fetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial. The Revisional Court must avoid substituting its own view at this stage if the view taken by the Trial Court is neither perverse nor patently unwarranted.
(July 27, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125475
2001-DLT-93-428 :: 2001-AD (Del)-6-187
RAJESH MEHTA Vs. STATE of DELHI
R. C. CHOPRA
( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is being prosecuted under Sections 498-A and 304-B indian Penal Code, has filed this Revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" only) for setting aside an order dated 6. 9. 2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. New Delhi ordering that charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A Indian Penal Code be framed against him.
( 2 ) THE facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner got married to deceased Neelam on 11. 12. 1996 at Delhi. According to the prosecution, soon after the marriage the petitioner started misbehaving with his wife and-used to give her beatings even. The brothers of the deceased once went to the house of the petitioner and tried to make him see reason, but did not succeed. On that very night again there was some episode in the house of the petitioner on account of which police control room van came and took the petitioner along. In July, 1997, the petitioner along with his wife deceased neelam shifted to Palam Colony, but there also he continued to give her beatings on account of which she suffered miscarriage. From Palam Colony they shifted their house to South Extension Part-I, but the misbehavior and beatings continued. On 28. 8. 1999 the petitioner abused his father-in-law on telephone and threatened him to either take away his daughter or she would be left at Nari niketan. After about half an hour, the mother of the petitioner informed the father of the deceived that deceased Neelam had consumed Baygon Spray. They also received a phone call from police station and were told that Neelam was admitted in I. C. U. of Moolchand Hospital. The parents and other family members of the deceased did not go to the hospital even out of fear of the petitioner. Later when the deceased came to her parents house, she informed them that the FIR registered at P. S. Kalkaji on the basis of the above incident had been quashed by the High Court on her statement. On 20. 2. 2000 the family of the deceased received information about her death from P. S. Vasant Kunj. They went to her house and found that her body was lying in a store on first floor. Suspecting that the deceased had been murdered by the petitioner, brother of the deceased filed a report with the police station on which an FIR under Section 304-B/498-AIndian Penal Code was registered. After necessary investigations, a challan was filed against the petitioner.
( 3 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned orders dated 6. 9. 2000 found a prima facie case against the petitioner under Section 304-B as well as 498- aindian Penal Code and ordered framing of charges against him.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no charge under Section 304-BIndian Penal Code could be framed as there was no evidence on record to suggest even that the deceased was being harassed on account of any dowry demand. It is submitted that earlier FIR No. 588/99 under Section 498-AIndian Penal Code registered at P. S. Kalkaji was quashed by the High Court vide orders dated 7. 1. 2000 on the statement of the deceased and as such, allegations made therein stood effaced and could not be used in this case for holding that soon before her death the deceased was being subjected to any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry. Arguing that it was a simple case of suicide, learned counsel submits that no charge under Section 498-AIndian Penal Code was even made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed as there were no grounds at all for proceeding against the petitioner.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the State on the other hand submits that there are no good grounds at all for interfering with the impugned order framing
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
