R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21 -2 -2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 1 Ajmer, whereby the charges have been framed against the Petitioners for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 302 IPC.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 3 -5 -2010, one Ghanshyam Singh submitted a report at Police Station Pushkar informing therein that Madhvi wife of his nephew, Rampratap Singh, has consumed celphose. Madhvi was taken to JLN Hospital Ajmer, where she died. The report was registered as Mrig Report No. 8/2010, and proceedings under Section 176 Code of Criminal Procedure were conducted. The dead body of Madhvi was handed over to Mangal Singh, father of deceased. Subsequently on 17 -6 -2010, a FIR No. 98/2010 was registered at Police Station Pushkar, District Ajmer, for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the Petitioners. On 21 -2 -2011, the learned trial court framed charges against the Petitioners for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 302 IPC. Hence, this petition. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has vehemently contended that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The falsity of the case is apparent from the fact that although Madhvi had consumed Celphose tablets on 3 -5 -2010, during the inquest proceedings, no complaint was made by the complainant. In fact, it was only after the Petitioner No. 1, Ram Pratap Singh, husband of the deceased, had moved an application for the custody of daughter, that the FIR was lodged on 17 -6 -2010. Thus, the FIR was lodged after inordinate delay of over one month. Secondly, the FIR is merely a counter -blast to the application filed by the Petitioner for the custody of child. Thus, the FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive. Thirdly, according to Dr. Mahendra Jain, the deceased was suffering from psychological problem. Therefore, the possibility that the deceased had committed suicide because of her psychological problem cannot be ruled out. Fourthly, there is ample evidence in the form of statements of independent witnesses, which clearly shows that no offence under Sections 304 -B, 306, 498 -A, and 302 IPC is made out. Yet, the learned Judge has framed the charges as aforementioned.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that what would be the impact of delayed FIR cannot be considered at the stage of framing charge. Merely, delay in lodging the FIR would not reject the case of prosecution. Therefore, it is too early in the date to accept the contention that merely because the FIR was lodged after some delay, the FIR should be rejected and the Petitioners should be discharged. Secondly, it is a defence of the Petitioner that the deceased was suffering from psychological problems. However, the said defence cannot be accepted at the initial stage. Thirdly, even if certain independent witnesses do not support the case of prosecution, even then it is a matter of appreciation of evidence after the complete trial. At the initial stage, the learned trial court cannot meticulously examine the evidence and discharge the Petitioners.;