Honble YADAV, J. - The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Satnam Moga and Kishore Singh against the order of learned ACJM, Sriganganagar dated 31.3.95 whereby the petitioners alongwith two others were charged for offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC in respect of FIR No. 432 of 1992, registered at P.S. Kotwali, Sriganganagar.

(2). The present petitioners have come up before this Court against framing of charges by the learned ACJM, Sriganganagar on the ground inter-alia that framing of charge against the petitioners amounts abuse of the process of the Court within the meaning of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3). The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that the learned Magistrate has no authority in law to frame charge against the petitioners under Section 240 Cr.P.C. as according to him there is no material on record regarding performance of saptapadi.

(4). In support of his aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance before me on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Shanti Deb Berma vs. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi (1).

(5). In case of Shanti Deb Berma (supra) it was a case under Section 494 IPC in which it was held by their lordships that for proving second marriage where both the parties are Hindus, is performance of saptapadi is required to be proved. Unless the saptapadi proved the accused cannot be convicted under Section 494 IPC. The facts of the aforesaid case are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in the present case it is not an offence of Bigamy under Section 494 IPC but the learned Magistrate has framed the charges under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Secondly the standard of proof for conviction and for framing of charge are not the same.

(6). In my considered opinion if at the time of framing of charge there is a strong suspicion which leads to the learned Magistrate to believe that there is ground for presuming that the accused have committed an offence charge must be framed against such accused. At the stage of framing of charge the learned Magistrate is neither required nor obliged to weigh the evidence on record. Charge is to be framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C. if a prima-facie case is made out against the accused.

(7). As a matter of fact according to the phraseology used under Section 240 Cr.P.C. for framing of charge if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is a ground for presumption that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. as warrant case which such Magistrate is competent to try and which in his opinion could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(8). The expression ground for presuming used under Section 240 Cr.P.C. must be taken to mean that there are valid reasons or basis before the learned Magistrate to raise presumption that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. which such Magistrate is competent to try and he can adequately punish.

(9). In nut shell the framing of charge required the following conditions to be fulfilled namely: —

(a) the existence of a prima facie case on the basis of material on record;

(b) the offence is triable under Chapter XIX as a warrant case;

(c) the competency of the Magistrate to try the offence against the accused;

(d) the power of the Magistrate to punish the accused adequately. .

Once the aforesaid ingredients of Section 240 Cr.P.C. are satisfied the learned Magistrate has no option except to frame the charge against accused.

(10). Nothing is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any one of the ingredients mentioned above is either missing or lacking in the present case.

(11). With the aforesaid circumspection I would like to examine the facts of this case as to whether there was any valid reason before the learned Magistrate to raise presumption that the petitioners have committed any offence.

(12). According to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document