MANMOHAN LAXMINARAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the accused persons against framing of charge under Section 498A and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against them.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution information about the crime was received through a letter addressed to the Hon'ble the Prime Minister of. India by one Shankarlal Dubey resident of 638, Gol Bazar, Jabalpur and on investigation it was found that the daughter of the complainant/Shankarlal Dubey named Neelima alias Nilu was married to accused Captain Sudeep Pandey the son of the other two accused persons on 24 -2 -1988. Even after receiving dowry of about Rs.l,50,000/ -incash and kind, the accused persons were not satisfied and, therefore, used to torture Neelima since 25 -2 -1988 and ultimately, accused/Capt. Sudeep Pandey gave a blow on abdomen to Neelima while she was admitted to a Military Hospital as a result of which she died on 30 -1 -1989.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the applicants that the charge is without foundation and the material on record is not sufficient to sustain a charge under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel relied on decisions reported in 1989 (3) Crimes 645 (SC) and 1991 (1) Crimes 377 (Note). The learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that when the sessions court has come to a conclusion that on the material placed before it a prima facie case of commission of offence under the aforesaid sections is made out, this court cannot interfere lightly with that finding. Relying on 1986 Cri.LJ. 1245 (SC), 1989 (1) SCC 715 and 1991 (1) SCC 371, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State that in the circumstances of the case there was no scope for interference and the accused persons must be asked to stand trial.