SAROJ SATIJA AND ASHOK KUMAR BATRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the prosecutor is required, while opening the case for the prosecution, to describe the charge against the accused. With this part over comes the duty of the court to pass an order either under section 227 or section 228 of the Code. However, that order is passed only after considering the record of the case, the documents submitted therewith and hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. If "the judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing" as required by section 227. However, if "the judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence .which ............ (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused" as enjoined in section 228.

(2.) The dispute in this case is as to whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have proceeded under section 227 or under section 228 of the Code. However, let me first provide the background.

(3.) Seema was the name of the deceased. She was married to Sushil Batra on March 7, 1991 and died an unnatural death on November 2, 1992 due to consumption of Baygone Spray. The First Information Report was recorded on the statement of Vipin Babbar, the brother of the deceased. On completion of investigation, report was filed under section 173 of the Code, and on June 5, 1993 the learned Additional SessionsJudge framed charges undersections 498A,304B and in the alternative under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Two of the. accused so charged arc Ashok Kumar Batra and Saroj Satija. They have, by w*ay of separate petitions, sought the quashing of the charges so framed. The present is an exercise to deal with both these petitions.