The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application with prayer to frame the charges for the particular offence, moved by the complainant, was found to be against the provisions of law prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Smt. Nusrat Jahan, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Satyendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. By means of instant application, the applicants have assailed the impugned order dated 10-02-2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur (now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Sultanpur) in Sessions Trial No. 1080 of 2022, State of U.P. vs. Sadhna @ Gudiya and Another, arising out of Case Crime No. 77 of 2022, under sections 302/34 and 201 of I.P.C. Police Station-Sangrampur, District Amethi.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the first information report was lodged by the complainant, namely Banshi Lal Gupta on 29-04-2022, at 04.01 P.M. with respect to the incident which occurred on 04-04-2022. On the said date, the complainant’s son, namely, Anikesh @ Madan, aged about 22 years, left his house at about 07.00 P.M. to visit Kalikan Dham. On the way, he met the applicants nearby their houses, but, thereafter, he did not come back. It is alleged that the applicant no. 2 namely, Sadhna @ Gudiya was having love affair with the complainant’s son, but, her family members were against this love affair and they used to threaten the complainant’s son. On 06-04-2022, a missing report of complainant’s son was lodged. The marriage of the applicant no. 2 was to be solemnized on 23-04-2022 with some other person. On 22-04-2022, a day before her marriage, applicant no. 2 called the nephew of complainant’s son namely, Nitesh and tried to handover mobile phone, purse, driving license and Aadhaar Card etc. of the complainant’s son, but, Nitesh refused to take the same and informed the family members about the incident.

4. After the ‘Vidai Ceremony’ of applicant no. 2, the complainant made a complaint to the father of the applicant no. 2 with respect to the previous incident that occurred on 22-04-2022. On this, the father of the applicant no. 2 requested the complainant not to lodge the first information report.

5. On 28-04-2022, complainant saw the dead body of his son hanging with hook near animal hospital. It is alleged that the applicants along with some other unknown persons killed the son of the complainant and they concealed his dead-body.

6. Later on, the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer and it was found that the deceased himself committed suicide, whereafter, on the application of the complainant, the matter was re-investigated and the Charge-Sheet was filed under section 306 of I.P.C.

7. Contention of the counsel for the applicants is that there is delay of about 25 days in lodging the first information report, as the incident occurred on 04-04-2022 and the first information report was lodged 29-04-2022. He submits that initially the first information report was lodged for missing of the son of the complainant, but, no allegation was levelled against the applicants, but, after the first information report was lodged under sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. the charge-sheet was filed against the applicants under section 306 of I.P.C. He further added that an application was moved by the complainant on 10-02-2023 before the learned trial court for framing of charges against the applicants under sections 302/34 and 201 of I.P.C. and on the said application, the learned trial court framed the charges against the applicants for abovesaid offences, which is against the settled proposition of law.

8. He contends that the learned trial court could not have passed the order on an application moved by the complainant as there is no such provision provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’). Referring the Sections 227 & 228 of the Code, he added that it is not open to the complainant to move any application for framing of charges and it is to the court concerned, to form an opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused