NITIN JAYPRAKESH KURHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants in Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2023 have challenged orders dtd. 2/3/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik allowing the application preferred by State under Sec. 216 of Cr.P.C. and order dated 02. 03.2023 framing charge under Sec. 304-B r/w Sec. of IPC . Initially charge was framed against all the applicants in Criminal Revision application No.212 of 2023 by order dtd. 8/3/2021. The charge under Sec. 304-B r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 498-A IPC were framed alternatively. Application under Sec. 216 Cr.P.C. was filed on 24/11/2022 . The application was allowed by order dtd. 2/3/2023 and it was directed that separate charge be framed under Sec. 304-B of IPC as additional charge. On the same day charge was framed under Sec. 304-B of IPC. The applicants in Criminal Revision Application No.2679 of 2023, who are applicant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2023 has challenged the order dtd. 8/3/2021 framing charge. There has been delay of more than two years in challenging the said order. In fact the order dtd. 8/3/2021 has been culminated in subsequent order dtd. 2/3/2023 which is under challenge by all the applicants in Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2023.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that, as against the applicant Nos. 3, 4 & 5 in Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2023, there is no evidence to frame charge for any offences. The FIR or the charge-sheet does not support the charges framed against them. As far as the applicant Nos.1 & 2 are concerned, there is no evidence to frame charge under Sec. 304-B of IPC. The amount transferred into the account of brother of deceased which are considered by the learned Judge while allowing the application under Sec. 216 of Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be a dowry. There was no previous complaints about dowry being demanded by the accused. In the absence of any evidence, the Court ought not to have frame charge under Sec. 304-B of IPC.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. submitted that, reading of FIR and the statement of other witnesses prima facie makes out the case for framing charge. Role has been attributed to all the applicants. The defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.