The importance of establishing a prima facie case for framing charges and the caution against the misuse of provisions for the protection of women in matrimonial disputes.

Nirmal Singh, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-1 vide which respondents 2 and 3 were discharged by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana vide order dated 24.4.1996 Annexure P-2 vide which the revision petition filed by the State has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

2. The facts of the case are that on the complaint of Mukesh Rani a case under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506, 34, I.P.C. was registered against Sukhdev, Krishan, Bharto, Kalawanti and Ram Niwas, on the allegations that they have been harassing the complainant for bringing refrigerator, scooter and cash amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for the purchase of land. After the completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173, Cr. P.C. was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after perusing the evidence on record discharged Ram Niwas and Kalawati whereas other accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 34, IPC. Aggrieved by the order of discharge, the State preferred a revision petition which came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat who vide order dated 26.3.1998 dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the orders of Courts below the present petition has been preferred.

3. I have heard Mr. Ramesh Hooda, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Mr. Hooda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are palpably erroneous. He submitted that at the time of framing the charge, the Courts are not to see whether the accused is to be convicted or to be acquitted. He submitted that at the time of framing the charge, only a prima facie case is to be seen. If from the evidence on record, a prima facie case is made out, then a charge is to be framed. He submitted that from the evidence on record, it has transpired that there is a prima facie case against respondents 2 and 3. He submitted that the petitioner was harassed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 along with their co-accused on account of demand of dowry. They were demanding scooter and refrigerator. He further submitted that the dowry articles have been recovered from the house of respondent No. 2. He submitted that these facts have been overlooked by the learned Trial Court.

5. After hearing the learned Counsel of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. There is no dispute regarding proposition of law putforth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the time of framing the charge, the Trial Court is not to go into the merits of the case and only a prima facie case is to be seen. At that stage, it is not to be seen whether the accused is to be convicted or to be acquitted.

At the same time, if the allegations are vague and from the complaint itself, it shows that the accused has been falsely implicated then the charge is not to be framed. If the charge is framed it will tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court. Reliance can be placed upon Satyabir Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 1993 (2) CLR 249; Parveen Kumari v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1994 (1) CLR 53; Madhu Bala Mahajan v. Sunayana Mahajan, 1991 (2) CLR 227.

6. In the instant case respondent No. 2 is the husband of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 is the sister of husband of the complainant. In the FIR, it has not been specifically mentioned what dowry articles were entrusted to respondents 2 and 3 at the time of marriage. If no article has been entrusted to respondents 2 and 3, then no case under Section 406 is made out. It is also not the case of the complainant that respondents 2 and 3 are residing with the husband of the complainant. The respondents have placed on record the document showing that they are employed as teachers and are living separately in village Bambla from the complainant and her husband Satyadev. Even