MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the order dated October 16, 2008 of Special Judge, women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Jaipur City Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 46 of 2008 framing charge against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B IPC.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Om Prakash Rastogi lodged first information report at Police Station Shyam Nagar on April 24, 2008, in which it was I stated that his daughter Vandana married with Rajneesh Rastogi on April 21, 2007 according to Hindu Mythology. He stated that as per his capacity he gave dowry to her daughter. Her daughter earlier lived at Delhi with Rajneesh and thereafter they came to Jaipur and at Jaipur petitioner Rajneesh started harassing her physically and mentally. After drunk he beaten up her daughter and gave abuses. Her daughter reported these instances to him and when her daughter was more tensive she narrated all these over telephone and she stated that she will commit suicide. The petitioner several times stated to Vandana that they have spent Rs. 5,00,000/ - and brought her as a servant and their parents spent nothing in marriage and they cannot sit parallel to them. On account of this mental and physical torture his daughter committed suicide on April 23, 2008. Upon this report the Police registered case for the offences under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B IPC. The police filed challan before the concerned Magistrate, who committed it to the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur where from it was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases Jaipur City Jaipur. The trial court after hearing both the sides framed charge against the accused petitioner by his order dated October 16, 2008 for the offences under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B IPC. Against the said order this revision petition has been preferred. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.R. Bajwa, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. V.P. Bishnoi and Mr. B.N. Sandu, Public Prosecutor at length. Mr. Bajwa, contended that the trial court has erred in framing charge under Sections 498 A and 304 -B IPC against the petitioner which has led complete miscarriage of Justice. According to him essential ingredients of offence under Section 304 -B IPC do not stand reflected even prima facie from the material dished out by the investigating agency in its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased Vandana there is no allegation in respect of any dowry demand. The FIR is completely indolent on the most vital aspect in respect of punitive ingredients of Section 304 -B IPC. A day prior to the incident the petitioner and deceased Vandana gave a lavish party on the occasion of their marriage anniversary and they were happy with each other. Mr. Bajwa, further contended that Neetu Rastogi, sister of deceased, in her police statement has given out conversation between her and Vandana in which there is not even a shred of dispute regarding any dowry demand or cruelty in connection thereto by the accused petitioner. The petitioner himself lodged the report with the Police Station Shyam Nagar and also immediately informed her in laws. The order framing charge is liable to be set aside in these circumstances. Mr. Bajwa contended that the court has neither given reasoned order nor speaking order. Mr. Bajwa relied upon the judgment of Ramchandra v. State of M.P. 2001(2) Supreme (Cr.) 87.
(3.) ON the other hand Mr. B.N. Sandu, Public Prosecutor drawn my attention to Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. read as under: 227. Discharge. - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 228. Framing of charge . - (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which -(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of , warrant cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall framed in writing a charge against the accused. (2) where the Judge frames any charge under Clause (b) of Sub -section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. ;