The need for a judicious approach in framing charges, requirement of concrete allegations and evidence in cases of 498-A, and the impact on the accused's personal liberty.

R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 17.09.2005, whereby the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khetri has framed the charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 306, 406 and 498-A IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 111.2004, the complainant, Pratap Singh, lodged a report at Police Station Buhana wherein he claimed that his daughter, Savita, was married to the petitioners son, Jitendra. Just after her marriage, the husband, the mother-in-law, the father-in-law and the brother-in-law started torturing his daughter for dowry. He further claimed that during the marriage, he had spent a huge amount on his daughters marriage and had given Rupees One lakh to the accused persons by way of dowry. He further alleged that Jitendra was a habitual drinker who would abuse and assault his daughter after heavy drinking. Because of the ill treatment, his nephew Mohan had brought his daughter back to the paternal house. But after intervention of family relations, Savita was sent back to the matrimonial home on 11.2004. On 111.2004, a telephone call was received at his residence that Savita has been thrown into the well and has died.

3. On the basis of the said report, the Police registered a formal FIR, FIR No. 278/04, against the four accused persons for offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. However, after a thorough investigation, the Police did not submit any charge-sheet against the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law. But submitted the charge-sheet against the husband and the father-in-law, the present petitioner before us. After hearing both the prosecution and the petitioner, the learned trial Court framed the charges as aforementioned. Hence, the petition before us.

4. Mr. Anshuman Saxena, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that firstly, only general and vague allegations have been leveled against the present petitioner. Same set of allegations was also levelled against the mother-in-law, yet the Police did not believe the allegations. On the same set of evidence while the police has not filed a charge-sheet against the mother-in-law, the Court has framed charges against the petitioner. In fact, the bald statements do not add up to offence under Section 498-A IPC. The Learned trial Court has ignored this aspect of the case and has framed the charges against the petitioner. Secondly, the deceased was married to the petitioners son for a period of seven to eight years. During this interim period, the complainant did not complain about the alleged abuse of his daughter. Thirdly, a large number of witnesses have claimed in their statement under Section 161 CrPC, that Savita, the deceased, was suffering from mental disorder. In fact, the deceased jumped into the well and committed suicide not because of any abatement, caused by the petitioner, but because she was suffering from a mental disorder. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner

had intentionally abetted the alleged suicide committed by the deceased. Therefore, the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC are conspicuously missing. Hence, the charges framed by the learned trial Court deserve to be set aside.

5. The complainant was not arrayed as a party to the petition since the case started on a police report. However, as Mr. Gajraj appeared on behalf of the complainant, he was permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor. Mr Gurjar has argued that while framing the charges, the learned trial Court cannot enter into a detailed examination of the evidence collected by the police during investigation. If a prima facie case is made out, the learned trial Court would be justified in framing the charges. Moreover according to him, even the bald statements were sufficient for framing the charges against the petitioner. Therefore, he has supported the impugned order. Since the learned Public Prosecutor has echoed the same arguments, we need not record them.

We have heard the learned Counsels