SHRINIWAS SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and Shri Raj Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

(2.) Challenge has been raised to the order dtd. 10/5/2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Hathrass, in Session Trial No. 204 of 2022. The order is unusual. At the stage of framing of charge, the learned court below has chosen to pass the impugned order which is not an order of framing of charge. Yet it is an order indicating the accused person may be charged with offence under Sec. 306 and not Sec. 304B under which chargesheet had been submitted against them.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is, being governed by the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the code') and in face of specific provision of Sec. 227 read with 228 of the Code, the learned court below had to only form an opinion that there existed ground to presume that the accused had commited an offence triable by Court of sessions. Upon such opinion being formed the only act required to be performed by the learned court below was to frame an exact charge. Insofar as charge has yet not been framed, the order dtd. 10/5/2022 exceeds jurisdiction since a firm opinion has been expressed already and satisfaction has been recorded by the learned court below that no charge may be framed under Sec. 304B IPC. The course adopted by the learned court below is both contrary to the Code and prejudicial to the trial that is yet to arise.