Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. - (1.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties to this lis, all the above-captioned petitions, i.e. CRR-1795-2015 (Sandeep @ Monu @ Sonu v. State of Haryana) ; CRR-1946-2015 (Sakshi v. State of Haryana) and CRR-4501-2015 (Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others) , are decided by the present common order, as all the three revision petitions have arisen out of the same impugned order.
(2.) Criminal Revision Nos.1795 and 1946 of 2015 have been filed by petitioners-accused Sandeep @ Monu @ Sonu and Sakshi, respectively, challenging the order framing charges against them for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 306, IPC. Criminal Revision No.4501 of 2015 has been filed by petitioner-informant-complainant Naresh Kumar challenging the same impugned order, dated 29.04.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 66, 66-A and 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity, 'the I.T. Act'), were not framed for prosecution of petitioners-accused Sandeep @ Monu @ Sonu and Sakshi.
(3.) Mr.SanjayVashisth, and Mr.Sunil Sangwan, Advocates, representing petitioners-accused Sandeep @ Monu @ Sonu and Sakshi, respectively, submitted as under: 1. that even if the entire material available on record is taken at its face value then also the gravamen of Sections 302 and 306, IPC, are not attracted qua the petitioners; 2. while passing the order framing charges, the learned trial Court failed to discuss material available on record to find out prima facie case against the petitioners-accused; 3. alternative charges under Sections 302 and 306, IPC, cannot be framed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand; 4. the disclosure statements in the shape of confession before the police, alleged to have been suffered by the petitioners-accused are inadmissible and, as such, the same have to be excluded while finding out a prima facie case for framing charges against the petitioners accused; 5. and that the learned trial Court in the last para of the impugned order abruptly ordered for framing of charge under Sections 302 and 306, IPC, which is palpably wrong.;