Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 252 (MP)

Gopal Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-02-29

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2012
ORDER 1. By this revision under section 397 read with 401 of the CrPC petitioner Dharmendra Singh has submitted the order framing charge dated 13.1.2012 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone in S.T. No. 233/2011. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the ingredients for offence under sections 306 and 498A of the IPC are not fulfilled and the deceased wife while recording the dying declaration stated that nobody was responsible for the action undertaken by her. Counsel submitted that on this ground it is evident that the petitioner was being falsely implicated by the prosecution. Further there is no iota of evidence on record to implicate the petitioner and the deceased was in fact a mental patient. Hence, counsel prayed that the charges framed against the petitioner be quashed. To bolster his submissions, counsel relied on Jugal Kishore v. State of M.P., 2004 (2) MPLJ 381, Param Lohar and three others v. State of M.P. 2001 (2) MPLJ 521, Hukum Singh Yadav and another v. State of M.P., 2011 (5) MPHT 297, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., 2002 (2) JLJ 275 = 2002 (2) Apradh Nirnay Journal (SC) 634, Malkhan Singh and Smt. Guddi v. State of M.P., 2011 (1) MPWN 96 = 2011 (1) Apradh Nirnay Journal 138 and Chotelal and another v. State of M.P., 2005 (1) Apradh Nirnay Journal 42. Counsel submitted that the learned trial Court had erred in framing the charges for offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC. Counsel further submitted that offence under section 498A of the IPC also cannot be made against the petitioner since the petitioner had never demanded dowry as was being alleged by the prosecution and there is no basis in the material collected by the prosecution to indicate that the petitioner was involved in the offence. Counsel prayed that under the same set of circumstances the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7153/2011. 3. Learned counsel for respondent/State has fully supported the impugned order of the lower Court and has submitted that witnesses Gulabsingh, Mahendrasingh and Vishnu Bai, the father, brother and mother of the deceased respectively all of them had categorically submitted that the deceased Neetu used to be depressed due to the ill-treatment of her husband and the husband was addicted excessive alcohol and abused the wife. Moreover, witness Mahendrasingh, the brother of the deceased had categorically stated that time and again he used to diffuse the situation and had tried to pacify the monetary demands of the accused; despite which the accused continued with the ill-treatment. Moreover, counsel submitted that there is ample evidence on record against the accused and hence the citations of cases by the counsel for the petitioner were of no help to him. Hence, counsel prayed for dismissal of the peititon. 4. On considering the above submissions and the evidence available on record, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The order framing charges against the the petitioner is based on sound appreciation of material available on record and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence and no infirmity can be found with the impugned order of the trial Court framing the aforesaid charges. The petition is premature and it would not be proper to stifle the prosecution at this stage. 5. Moreover, it is trite to state that at time of framing of charge the material and quality of evidence cannot be gone into. This Court is well aware about the limitation of this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, which does not empower to intervene at an interlocutory stage. Moreover, all that has to be looked into at the time of framing of the charge is that whether there was existence of prima facie case. So also it would be profitable to rely on State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.B. Johari and others 2000 (1) JLJ 142 = 2000 (2) MPLJ 322 (SC) whereby the Court held thus : “It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima-facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed.” 6. (Also see) Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau : ¼2000½ 1 SCC 138; State of Maharashtra and others v. Somnath Thapa and others, (1996) 4 SCC 659 . There is no infirmity in the impugned order. 7. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being sans merit. ............................