Brajesh Singh @ Brajesh Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar

Rekha Kumari, J.—This is an application filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 3.9.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2002 (now pending in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge IX, Chapra) by which he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him under the provisions of section 227 Cr.P.C. Heard both sides.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is Sala (Brother-in-law) of the informant. The informant had filed the above case against the husband and in-laws of his sister Anita Devi under sections 304-B, and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code for dowry death and for causing disappearance of the evidence of that offence. The I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons and also the petitioner under sections 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was not named as an accused in the F.I.R. The accused persons, however, brought the I.O. in their collusion and in order to put pressure upon the informant to compromise the case falsely implicated the petitioner. The petitioner also figures as a witness in the protest petition filed by the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is absolutely no material in the case diary against the petitioner for the offence u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code. As regards the offence u/s 306 I.P.C. the materials in the case diary against the petitioner do not constitute an offence u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned A.P.P. defended the order.

It is, of course, well settled that at the stage of framing charge the trial court cannot weigh the materials but it must see whether there is a prima facie material for quashing the order taking cognizance against the petitioner and for that it has to see whether if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, any offence is made out against the accused. The impugned order, however, shows that though the learned Sessions Judge has stated that the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner led the deceased to commit suicide, he has not considered whether the said conduct and behaviour, prima facie, constitute abetment as defined in Section 107 I.P.C. for framing of charge u/s 306 I.P.C. against the petitioner. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside. The learned trial court is directed to consider after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties whether the materials available in the case diary taken in entirety, make out an offence u/s 306 I.P.C. or any other offence against the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. This application is accordingly allowed in the manner as indicated above.