LAWS(MPH)-2013-9-183

ANIL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On September 12, 2013
ANIL GUPTA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed against the order dated 1 -5 -2013 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T. No. 115/2012 framing charge against the applicant under Sections 306 and 498 -A, IPC.

(2.) THE applicant was married to Reena Gupta (hereinafter referred to as ''the deceased '') on 23 -6 -2010. It is said that in the marriage Rs 2,01,000/ - cash and Rs 50,000/ - cash to purchase the motorcycle, television set, watch, gold ring, utensils and clothes were given to the applicant. On 24 -6 -2010, the Vida ceremony took place and after staying for two months with the applicant the deceased came to her nuptial home. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 9 -9 -2010, the applicant sent SMS on the Mobile Phone No. 09835018851 to the deceased requesting her to live alone. After reading the SMS, the deceased hanged herself in her nuptial home. Upon investigation it was found by the Investigating Agency that the applicant has committed an offence under Sections 498 -A and 306, IPC. Eventually, a charge -sheet was submitted in the Trial Court, which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session, which framed the charges punishable under Sections 498 -A and 306, IPC by the impugned order.

(3.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the applicant/accused is that there is nothing in the charge -sheet in order to set in motion the ingredients of Section 107, IPC and if that is the position the charge under Section 306, IPC, which has been framed by learned Trial Court should be quashed. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 1998. By inviting my attention to the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses it has been submitted that nowhere it has come in the statement of any of the witnesses that the applicant subjected the deceased to cruelty so as to drive her to commit suicide or dealt any grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) to the deceased. Learned Counsel further submits that there is no iota of material in the entire charge -sheet that the applicant harassed the deceased with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security. Thus, the framing of charge under Section 498 -A, IPC is also to be quashed.