- (1.) INVOKING Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners moved this Court for quashing of the charge under Sections 498a/406/34 of the indian Penal Code.
(2.) MR. Sekhar Basu, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged for quashing of the impugned order of framing charge on the following grounds:- (a) The allegations made in the FIR or in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of the same, at their face value does not constitute the offences for which charge has been framed. (b) The Learned Trial Court framed the charge mechanically. (c) The materials collected by the police during investigation do not constitute cruelty within the meaning of explanation a or b of Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code. (d) No case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code for misappropriating stridhan articles can said to have been made out, on the face of the statement of the complainant that she could not say with certainty that her stridhan articles, viz. , the jeweleries were still at her matrimonial home or not and thus she is not inclined to go with the police for conducting a search there. The allegations on the basis of which the charge has been framed and petitioners have been placed on trial have been made with the mala fide intention to wreak vengeance and to spite the petitioners in the eye of people. On the other hand, Mr. Swapan Kumar Mullick, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State produced the Case Diary and submitted both the allegations made in the FIR as well as those appearing from the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code clearly makes out the commission of the offences for which charge has been framed and as such no interference with the order of framing charge is called for. Similarly, the Learned Advocate appearing for the defactocomplainant vehemently urged for dismissal of the instant criminal revision submitting that there are sufficient materials to justify framing of charge.
(3.) THIS is a case where the accuseds have approached this Court for quashing of the charge and High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the trial Courts order for framing of charge unless there is glaring injustice. At the stage of framing charge the Court is only required to see whether the evidentiary material collected by the Investigating Agency and proposed to be relied on by the prosecution against the accused during trial has made out a prima facie case or not but it is not permissible for a Court to make a roving and fishing enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if it was conducting a trial.;