Amit Kumar vs State of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

This misc. petition has been preferred to quash and set-aside the order dated 07.10.2016 and the order dated 03.11.2017, whereby the trial

court framed the charge for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against the accused-petitioners and the revisional court upheld the said

order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no sufficient material is available to frame the charge for the aforesaid offences against the

accused-petitioners. He has contended that during matrimonial dispute, which arose between the husband and wife namely Amit Kumar and

Madhu Gautam, compromise took place between them twice on 20.05.2014 and 14.03.2016. Not abiding the said compromise, FIR came to be

filed on behalf of the respondent-wife. There is no specific allegation against the in-laws of the complainant. In such circumstances, both the orders

impugned may be quashed and set-aside.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that despite the efforts were made by the complainant-wife to resolve the matrimonial

dispute and the compromise was twice executed on 20.05.2014 and 14.03.2016, still the conduct and behaviour of the accused-petitioners

remained the same. They continued to harass the wife with the intention to pressurize her and her parents to fulfill the demand of dowry and car.

Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the allegations have been specifically mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statements recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant Smt. Madhu Gautam, his brother Vijay Pandit, mother - Smt. Kusum, father - Omprakash Gautam.

Taking the statements and the relevant material into consideration, the trial court proceeded to frame the charge for the offences under Sections

498A & 406 IPC. The criminal revision preferred by the accused-petitioners against the said order was also dismissed by the revisional court after

taking note of the material available. This petition has been preferred just to delay the proceedings of the criminal case. Hence, the same is liable to

be dismissed.

I have gone through the material available on record in view of the arguments advanced by the rival sides.

Both the courts below after considering the material available on record have passed the orders dated 07.10.2016 & 03.11.2017. The

statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the relevant witnesses are sufficient to prima facie show the involvement of the accused-

petitioners in the alleged offences. It is further to observe that at the stage of framing charge, the evidence is not required to meticulously examined

and marshaled. Prima facie strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charge against the accused persons.

In State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005)1 SCC 568, in Para 8 of the said judgment, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has

observed as follows in this regard :-

...................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

No provision in the Code grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted

only at the stage of the trial.

In view of above, I do not feel inclined to allow the misc. petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.