The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to frame charges in accordance with the severity of the offenses and the specific provisions of the IPC, ensuring that the charge order accurately reflects the alleged offenses.

Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks modification/amendment of the order on charge dated 14.10.2014 and charge so framed dated 16.3.2015 under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 IPC and consequently, seek direction for framing of charges under Sections 406/323/324/307 IPC, apart from 498-A/34 IPC.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on 16.5.2011 at about 6 a.m, when the petitioner was brewing tea in the kitchen, the respondent no.4 abused her and told her to get out of the house. When she refused to leave the house, the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 threatened by saying, “aj isko theek hi kar detein hein.” Accordingly, respondent no.2 proceeded to take the tea from the hand of the petitioner and then smashed it on her forehead 2-3 times and punched her face. But petitioner in fear of her life, ran away from the kitchen and call the police station. Since the petitioner was bleeding heavily, the respondent no. 4 said,” achha hai aaj mar hi jayegi kyonki glass par to iske hi hathon ke nishan hein.” Thereafter, the police arrived and the petitioner was taken to the DDU Hospital and MLC was conducted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the injuries on her head were grievous in nature as she required 23-24 stitches on her face. Despite, the fact learned trial court vide order on charge dated 14.10.2014, directed to frame the charges against the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and under Section 324 IPC r/w. Section 34 IPC.

4. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 14.10.2015, whereby the learned trial Court framed charges only under Section 498A/34.

5. He further submits that keeping in view the injuries and threat given by respondent no. 2, the learned trial Court ought to have framed the charge under Section 307 IPC.

6. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the learned trial Court vide order dated 14.10.2014 directed the charges to be framed under Section 498A/324/34 IPC. However, inadvertently framed charges only under Section 498A/34 IPC. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to frame charge against the respondents for the offences under Section 324 IPC pursuant to the order dated 14.10.2014.

7. Recording the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, fact remain that the aforesaid FIR in question vide no. 219/2011 was registered in the year 2011. The petitioner was well aware that the police did not register the said FIR either under Section 307 or 308 IPC, despite the injuries received by the petitioner on forehead. However, the petitioner had not taken any steps. Moreover, there is no argument advanced by the petitioner while arguments on charge before the trial court.

8. Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the petitioner did not take any steps initially nor argued before the trial Court. However, it was the duty of the trial Court to pass the proper order, keeping in view the material available on record.

9. On perusal of the FIR, the complainant stated that she was holding glass and smashed it on her forehead 2-3 times and also beaten her by giving fist blows on her face, but she ran away from the kitchen and gave the call on no. 100 as she was having heavy bleeding from her forehead.

10. It is further stated that thereafter, she was taken to the DDU hospital. The MLC was prepared to this effect but the fact remain that the police filed status report before the trial Court whereby stated that the complainant came to the police station who stated that when she was taking tea in the morning and her mother-in-law was preparing tea, some altercation was taken place between them. Her husband S P Singh was sitting on the chair. He put his hand on her hand due to which the glass of chai fell down and said glass hit my forehead due to which she received injury. Since the incident was between the husband and wife, therefore, the