Arvind Solanki and Others vs State and Another

Harbans Lal, J.—This revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the charges framed on 21.4.2005 against the petitioners in FIR No. 303/2004 PS Jhotwara, Jaipur for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.

The relevant facts are that petitioner Arvind Solanki was married to Smt. Mahisha, daughter of non-petitioner No. 2 at Jodhpur on 19.5.2002. On 12.7.2004 the committed suicide on the by handing in her room. Petitioner No. 2 father-in-law of the deceased immediately informed the police about the aforesaid incident and also informed non-petitioner No. 2 telephonically about the death of Mahisha. On 19.7.2004 non-petitioner No. 2 lodged a complaint at P.S. Jhotwara whereupon the aforesaid FIR came to be registered. It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioners had been harassing the deceased and demanding Rs. 2 lacs as dowry from her mother and were threatening her to kill her if their demand was not met. It was further alleged that they jointly forced deceased Mahisha to commit suicide. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 16.10.2004. The case was committed for trial and the learned trial Judge on the basis of the materials on" record and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties framed charges against the petitioners on 21.4.2005 for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC which order is under challenge in this revision.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record.

It may be stated at the outset that as held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Om Wati and Another Vs. State, through Delhi Admn. and Others, that at the stage of passing the order in terms of Section 227 of the Code, the Court hasmerely to peruse the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If upon consideration, the Court is satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out against the accused, the Judge must proceed to frame charge in terms of Section 228 of the Code. Only in a case where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to-adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone the Court can discharge the accused. The Court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of evidence and material placed before it at this stage.

In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and Another, , it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that the High Court should not interfere at the stage of framing of charge against the accused. Self-restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice which stares the court in the face. The opinion any matter may differ depending upon the person who views it. There may be-as many opinions on a particular matter as there are courts but it is no ground for the High Court to interdict the trial. It would be better for the High Court to allow the trial to proceed.

There are ample materials on record in support of the charges framed against the accused-petitioners and simply because some of the witnesses have pleaded ignorance about the strained relationship of the spouse it cannot be inferred at this stage in the face of the direct statements of the other witnesses that the charges for offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC are groundless.

Thus, keeping in view the material on record as well as the settled law in this behalf, no case for interference in the order framing charges is made out.

Consequently, this revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.