AMITABH ADHAR Vs. NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 5.10.1996 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi directing framing the impugned charges under Sections 498-A/406/506/509/34, Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision are that the complainant Ms. Bharri Saran was married to the accused Sudhanshu Saran on 2nd June, 1994. The married life of Sudhanshu Saran and Ms. Bharti Saran, according to the prosecution, lacked connubial felicity and was marked by constant bickerings and quarrels. The cause for this discord being the perverted sexual behaviour of the accused Sudhanshu Saran and the demand of dowry. It is the prosecution case that Sudhanshu Saran was constantly subjecting the complainant Ms. Bharti Saran to corporeal intransigence. The petitioner No. 1 is the step-brother and the petitioner No. 2 Ms. Bandana Vajpaye is the step-sister of the accused Sudhanshu Saran. On 28.1.1995, the complainant Ms. Bharti Saran lodged a written report at the Police Station Tilak Marg against her husband including the petitioners. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of a charge sheet under Sections 498-A/ 406/506/509/34, Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. By the order dated 5.10.19%, the Metropolitan Magistrate framed the impugned charges against the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) Assailing validity of the impugned order learned Counsel for the petitioners have strenuously urged that the materials collected by the prosecuting agency do not constitute any offence against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate committed a manifest illegality in framing the impugned charges against them. It is an admitted position that the complainant Ms. Bharti Saran was married to Sudhanshu Saran on 2.6.1994 and the petitioner No. 1 is the step-brother and petitioner No. 2 is the step-sister of the co-accused Sudhanshu. It is also undisputed that the petitioners are residing separately from the co-accused Sudhanshu Saran. It is well settled that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to marshal the evidence and record a finding that the materials collected by the prosecuting agency are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed a particular offence. In such case there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. (Niranjan Singh Koran Singh Punjabi and Ors. v. JitenderBhim RajPiyoyee and Ors., JT 1990 (3) SC 408; State of Biharv. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of India v. Prafulla KinnarSamal, (1979) 3 SCC 4; and Superintendent and Remembrancer and Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunfa, (1979) 4 SCC 274.