The main legal point established is that at the stage of framing charges, the trial court is only required to consider whether uncontroverted allegations prima facie make out a case against the accused, and the court must furnish reasons for discharging an accused.

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

The petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 02.08.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur passed in S.C. No. 92 of 2009 framing charge against them under Sections 304 (B)/306 of IPC. The learned trial court vide order dated 02.08.2013 has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for discharge and framed charge against them for commission of offences under Sections 498-A/304-B/306/34 Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ( in short “DP Act”).

2. The prosecution case in brief as per the FIR is that the marriage of the Soudamini, daughter of the informant Lokanath Bisi had been solemnized with Ananda Mallik in the month of Baisakh as per vedic rites. On 08.08.1989, her husband and in laws had killed her. He was informed about this over telephone by a person from Lariabahal. Ananda Mallik had relationship with his sister in law and there was demand for dowry and they were not allowing her to come to his house. On receiving the report, Dunguri Police Station P.S. Case No. 57 of 2009 was registered.

3. On completion of investigation, police submitted chargesheet under Sections 498-A/304(B)/306/34 of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against all the petitioners. After commitment, the case was renumbered as Sessions Case No.92 of 2009 after rejection of the application for discharge by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur, charge has been framed against them for commission of the offences under Sections 498 (A)/302/304(B)/34 IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act.

4. Petitioner No. 1-Ananda Mallik is the husband of the deceased, Petitioner No.2-Sarathi Mallik is her father in law, Petitioner No.3- Asrapi Mallik is her mother in law, Petitioner No 4- Gajendra Mallik is her brother in law (husband’s elder brother) and Petitioner No.5-Banita Mallik is her sister in law.

5. I have heard Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.P.C.Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel, perused the impugned order and the petition filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C in the learned trial Court. I have also gone through the written note of submission filed by the learned Additional Standing Counsel and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section – 161 Cr.P.C which are available in the case diary.

6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as the offences under Sections-304 (B) and 306 IPC were not made out against the petitioners, a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. had been filed with a prayer to discharge them. But the learned trial Court has rejected the application mechanically without referring to the statements of the witnesses or the ingredients of the offences. He has also submitted that the allegations made by the witnesses are general and omnibus in nature without specifying any specific overt act against each of the petitioners and there was absolutely no material on record even prima facie constitute offences under Sections-304 (B) and 306 IPC as the basic ingredients of the offences were absent. He has also urged that this Court should decide whether the trial court is required to scrutinize the law as well as the contentions raised in the petition for discharge and reflect the same in his order alongwith the availability of the basic ingredients of the offence for which charge is to be framed by referring to the statements of the chargesheet witnesses, so that they can be scrutinized by the higher Court and whether the law of precedents is applicable and what is the law laid down by the Apex Court for disposal of a petition filed under Section – 227 of the Cr.PC ? He has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi & others vs Jitendra Bhimaraj & others reported in AIR 1990 SC 1962 : (1990) 4 SCC 76 and State of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489, in support of his