Kalpana Nath and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—This is a petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 15.7.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 2, Agra in S.T. No. 715 of 2009, State v. A.K. Nath, as well as the charges dated 15.7.2010 framed against the applicants.

Heard Mr. Rajesh Yadav for the applicants, Learned A.G.A. for Respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

It appears that the applicant No. 1 is the sister and applicant No. 2 is the brother of the husband of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased with co-accused Arup Kanti Nath took place on 19.1.2001. It is alleged that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty by her husb and as well as the applicants and other accused for the dowry and most of the allegations have been made against the husband. It appears that the deceased committed suicide on 14.3.2002 in Agra, where she was living in the house of her husband. It is alleged that the husband was posted, as an Airman in the Air Force at Agra.

The cause of death of the deceased was hanging. It further appears that the applicants moved an application dated 4.1.2010 for their discharge inter alia on the ground that the deceased and her husb and used to live at Agra which is far away from their parental house whereas the applicants used to live permanently at Midnapore, West Bengal from before the date of occurrence. Therefore, there was no complicity of the applicants.

It was further stated in the discharge application that no complicity of the applicants has been disclosed in the suicide note dated 14.3.2002 as well as in the statements of independent witnesses Smt. Sushma and Sudheer Pathak, therefore, No. charge against the applicants was made out.

Mr. Rajesh Yadav, submitted that the Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges without giving due consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the applicants in their application dated4.1.2010 and also did not assign any reason as to how he arrived at the conclusion that a case for framing the charges was made out. It was next submitted that neither the statements of the witnesses Smt. Sushma and Sudheer Pathak were taken into consideration nor any due significance was given to the suicide note, therefore, the framing of charges was not proper.

It was next submitted on behalf of the applicants that the statement of the deceased dated 12.3.2002 before the Flying Officer was based on consultation and deliberation with her father. Some misunderstanding between the deceased and her father cropped up on14.3.2010, in consequence whereof the deceased committed suicide in the official quarter of her husband leaving a suicide note in English-Bengali, in which she stated that none was responsible for her death.

Learned Counsel for the applicants further submitted that without taking into consideration all the aforesaid materials, the Learned trial court was not justified in framing charges against the applicants.

It is well-settled that the Courts are not required to record reasons for framing charges. Reasons are required only when the Court decides to discharge the accused, therefore, the charges cannot be quashed on the ground that the Learned trial Judge has not assigned any reason as to how a prima-facie case for framing the charges was made out. In this connection, I have perused the impugned order dated15.7.2010. The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has very categorically arrived at the conclusion that a prima-facie case u/s 304B/498A and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act was made out from the evidence on record. Therefore, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the materials on record and found that a case for framing charges against the accused was made out.

It is equally well-settled that at the stage of charge the Court is not required to consider the defence version as well as the defence evidence. This legal position has been settled by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, . In that case the Apex Court has held that:

The law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has No. right to produce any material. No provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the "Code") grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial. Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Another, ,holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence.

Therefore, if the Learned trial court did not consider the defence plea of alibi or the suicide note relied on by the accused, the charges framed cannot be quashed, especially when the Learned trial court, keeping in view the materials on record, found a prima-facie case against the applicants.

It is also well-settled that an accused can be discharged u/s 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure only when if the Judge, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents and after hearing the accused and the prosecution, finds that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the Court upon considering all these things finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, it is open to the Court to frame the charge and in that eventuality, the discretion exercised by the Judge cannot be assailed in the proceeding u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure

For the reasons discussed above, the petition has No. merit and, is accordingly, dismissed.