Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1308 (RAJ)

Chain Das and 2 Anr. v. State of Rajasthan

2001-08-21

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners against the order dated 7.5.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra by which he ordered to frame charges against the accused petitioners for the offence under sections 304B alternatively 306 and 498A IPC. 2. The present accused petitioners Chain Das, Geeta Devi and Pawan Kumar are respectively father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband of the deceased. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners submitted that there is no evidence of dowry demand soon before the death of deceased and therefore, the impugned order of framing charges for the aforesaid offences is illegal and erroneous and the same be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned order and material on record. 6. From the impugned order dated 7.5.1996, it appears that the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that a prima facie case for framing of charges for the aforesaid offences exists on the basis of police statements and other documents. 7. In my considered opinion, where the prima facie case exists, discharge at this stage is not proper and at the stage of framing charge, the court has to be only prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and for this limited purpose, Court can evaluate evidence and documents on record, but it cannot appreciate the evidence. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari, ( AIR 1990 SC 121 ) has held that at the stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by Court is not required.Therefore, the submission that there is no evidence of dowry demand soon before the death of deceased cannot be appreciated at this stage. 9. Since the learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the police statement and other documents, found a prima facie case against the present accused petitioners for framing of the charges mentioned above and there appears to be no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 7.5.1996 therefore, no interference is called for in this revision petition. 10. 9. Since the learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the police statement and other documents, found a prima facie case against the present accused petitioners for framing of the charges mentioned above and there appears to be no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 7.5.1996 therefore, no interference is called for in this revision petition. 10. Apart from this, it may be stated here that power to quash the charge should not be exercised except for strong reasons to hold that in this interest of justice and in order to avoid the abuse of the process of the Court the charge needed to be quashed. But, the present case reflects and demonstrates the abuse of the process of the Court by the accused persons, who have succeeded in protracting the commencement of trial against them for about 4-5 years. 11. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the order dated 7.5.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. The record of the trial court be sent back immediately.Revision petition dismissed. *******