Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM DAS @ RAMA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Das @ Rama And Others v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 12387 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7445 (13 December 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

Heard Sri S. C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the accused applicants, Sri C. K. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 6.7.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. VI, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 182 of 2004 State Vs. Santosh Kumar and others. By this order learned Sessions Judge has directed for framing of the charge under Section 313 IPC against the accused applicants along with one Santosh, the husband of opposite party no. 2 Smt. Geeta.

Brief facts of the case are that a F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Geeta against the accused persons and also her husband Santosh Kumar which was registered at Crime NO. 240 of 2002 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that when she was pregnant, all the accused persons gave her some medicines which deteriorated her health. She had also alleged about ill-treatment and harassments and demand of dowry against all the applicants. After investigation the charge sheet under Section 313 I.P.C. was submitted against Santosh Kumar the husband only and the other accused applicants were charge sheeted under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 23.6.2005 directed that the charges against the applicants be also framed under Section 313 I.P.C. besides other sections as they all were alleged to have given some medicines, against the wishes of Smt. Geeta, resulting in deterioration of her health and consequent abortion. Therefore learned Trial Court framed the charges against the applicants vide order dated 6.7.2005. Accused applicants moved an application for deleting the charge under Section 313 I.P.C. against them but the learned Trial Court rejected that application vide order dated 1.8.2005. In the present proceedings accused applicants have challenged the order dated 6.7.2005 and 1.8.2005 and have not challenged the order dated 23.6.2005.

The contention of the learned counsel for the accused applicants is that accused had been wrongly charged under Section 313 I.P.C., as no specific allegation against them has been made, for the offence under these sections in the F.I.R., and the Investigating Officer also did not submit any charge sheet against them under this section.

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have contended that learned Trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the accused applicants under Section 313 IPC and that at this stage correctness cannot be challenged by the applicants  as it would pre-empt the trial. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the opposite party has cited the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Salim Khan and another, 2004(1) SCC 525, where it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that  though it is open to the High Court entertaining  a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code to quash charges, framed by the Trial Court, same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can be done only at the stage of trial. It has also been held in this case that by virtue of such premature finding of the High Court prosecution case gets pre-empted. In the above case, it has also been held that law governing the trial of criminal offences provides for alteration of charges at any stage of the proceedings depending upon the evidence adduced in the case. If the trial is being held before a Court of Magistrate, it is open to the Court at any stage of trial if it comes to the conclusion that the material on record indicates the commission of an offence which requires to be tried by a superior Court, it can always do so by committing such case for further trial to a superior court as contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure.  On the contrary if the trial is being conducted in a superior Court like Sessions Court and if that Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence produced in the said trial makes out a lesser offence than the one with which the accused is charged, it is always open to that Court based on evidence to convict such accused for a lesser offence. Thus, arguments regarding the framing of a proper charge are best left to be decided by the Trial court at an appropriate stage of the trial.

In vies of this legal position, it is clear that it is the trial Court which can decide the arguments regarding the framing of the proper charge.

In the instant case, the application filed by the applicants for deleting the charge under Section 313 I.P.C. has been rejected. Perusal of the F.I.R. shows that allegations against all the accused applicants have been made that they gave some medicines to the informant which resulted in deterioration of her health and consequent abortion. Therefore at this stage, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

Application is hereby dismissed.

Dated: 13.12.2005

RKS/12387/05


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.