The court upheld that at the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C., all relevant materials must be considered, allowing for sufficient grounds to discharge an accused if charges lack substantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Instant revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 442 BNSS is at the behest of the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 7^th January, 2025 passed in connection with C.T. (Sessions) Case No.113 of 2024 by learned Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda arising out of 1CC Case No.56 of 2012, whereby, an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. demanding discharge by him was rejected on the grounds inter alia that such decision is legally not tenable and hence, therefore, liable to be interfered with and set aside in the interest of justice.

2. According to the petitioner, the complaint in 1CC Case No.56 of 2012 was filed by opposite party No.1 before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda alleging therein that on 1^st December, 2010, he had given marriage of his elder daughter to the petitioner and after such marriage, the couple stayed at Belpahad till 18^th June, 2011 and during that time, she was subjected to torture on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demand by him, which was communicated to them several times and on 15^th March, 2011, they went to the house of the petitioner and assured him to comply the demand gradually but even thereafter, the situation did not improve and finally on 29^th June, 2011, received a call from his daughter about her life being in danger and on the next day i.e. on 30^th June, 2011, he was informed about her death and it was learned that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. In connection with the death of the deceased, UD Case No.38 of 2011 was registered and the body of the deceased was subjected to inquest and post-mortem examination and thereafter, the complaint was filed and therein, the Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 498 -A, 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC , whereafter, it was challenged in CRLMC No.2213 of 2012, which was allowed in part and the order in respect of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 was quashed.

3. According to the petitioner, no offences under Sections 306 and 304-B IPC are made out as its essential ingredients are totally absent, however, the learned court below issued process without considering the same. It is claimed by the petitioner that the deceased committed suicide due to her inferiority complex and frustration and the same is revealed from her suicide note collected by the police at Aurangabad. It is also claimed that the police recorded the statements of witnesses including the owner of the premises where the petitioner and the deceased wife used to reside and such enquiry was held independently and in spite of closure report in the UD case, the said fact was not disclosed by the complainant, when he was satisfied that the deceased daughter did commit suicide, inasmuch as, the post-mortem report suggested the death was due to hanging. A copy of the report is at Annexure-4 series referring to which and other relevant papers, such as, zimanama, inquest report and original death certificate, it is lastly pleaded by the petitioner that no case is made out and that too when the complaint is lodged almost after a year of the death of the deceased and therefore, the impugned order dated 7^th January, 2025 of the learned court below rejecting his discharge and framing charge against him for the alleged offences under , 304-B & 498-A cannot be sustained in law.

4. Heard Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.1.

5. Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the follo