JUDGMENT 1. - The police has filed a challan against the petitioner under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC after investigating the case F.I.R. No. 161/87 of Police Station Shastri Nagar Jaipur. According to the case of the prosecution as disclosed in the challan paper Smt. Rajni Devi wife of the petitioner had died due to the burn injuries within 7 years of her marriage with the petitioner and the petitioner used to subject her to cruelty. Before the charge was framed the petitioner moved an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) stating that after the cloths of his wife caught fire he tried to extinguish fire and in that process he himself received burn injuries on his neck head and face and he along with his wife had been admitted in the hospital and that during the time that she was admitted in the hospital the statement of his wife had been recorded by Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P.C. wherein she specifically stated that she was trying to take out the kerosene from the tin and since the lid of the tin was loose the kerosene fell on her cloths as a result of which she caught fire from a burning stove nearby and thereupon her husband tried to save her and received burn injuries and she was brought to the hospital by her husband. It was also stated in the application that as stated by Smt. Rajni Devi in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she was pregnant at the time of her admission in the hospital but her mother got her discharged from the said hospital against the advice of the doctors and got her child aborted and as a result thereof the wife of the petitioner had died. It was prayed that these documents be also summoned before the arguments for framing the charge are heard. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Jaipur City Jaipur has dismissed the application on the ground that while framing the charge he has to see only the documents which had been submitted by the police alongwith the challan and that the documents in question could be summoned by the applicant accused at proper stage. Feeling aggrieved the applicant has approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Feeling aggrieved the applicant has approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. I have heard Shri Banwari Lal Sharma Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.N. Shrimal the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also perused the impugned order. 3. It cannot be disputed that all the evidence mentioned above is in the form of documents and the statement under Section 164 G.P.C. must have been recorded at the instance of the police by the learned Judicial Magistrate. This also must be in the case diary that the applicant was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries and the deceased had been removed from the hospital against the advice of the hospital authorities and abortion was got done on her person in a different hospital. The police was bound to place before the Court all this evidence and they having kept it back it cannot be said that the challan was complete in accordance with Section 173 Cr.P.C. which enables the Court to decide whether to discharge the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. or to frame charge against him under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. Since a duty has been cast on the Court to decide whether or not to frame the charge only after hearing the accused in my view it would be necessary for the Court to peruse all the record that is available with the prosecution and if the prosecution has kept back certain record from the Court the Court is duty bound to insist that such record should be produced. Consequently the impugned order cannot be upheld and is here by set aside. For these reasons I direct that the learned Sessions Judge should call for the records mentioned in the application and hear the petitioner before the charges against him are framed by him. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of. *******