DUNGAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. petitioners Dungar Singh and Asha have challenged the order dated 28-11-2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Sessions Trial No. 162/2013 framing charges for offence under Sections 306 and 498A/34 of the IPC. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that according to the prosecution case, Laxmi, who is the second wife of petitioner Dungar Singh, has committed suicide by burning and she died on 29-7-2013. After investigation, the charge was filed against the petitioners. The petitioners have moved an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge. However, the Trial Court had rejected the application and framed charges under Sections 306, 498A/34 of the IPC against the petitioners. Hence, the present revision petition.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the offences cannot be made out against the petitioners, primarily because deceased Laxmi is not a legally wedded wife of the petitioner No. 1 and hence offence under Section 498A of the IPC cannot be made out against the petitioners. Relying on U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and another, 2009 CrLJ 2974 to state that cruelty to wife by the relatives of husband-girl friend or concubine of husband, who are not his relative and cannot be charged under Section 498A of the IPC. Counsel further relied on Kashiram v. State of M.P.,2006 1 MPWN 272, whereby the Court had held that behaviour of husband may be a cause for suicide of his wife, but cannot be equated with abetment; which requires a positive step to be taken by accused to induce commission of the offence. Counsel submitted that at the most; the allegation against the present petitioners is that they treated the deceased with cruelty regarding the domestic work that she had not done and the ingredients are thus not fulfilled. Hence, Counsel submitted that the offence under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be made out against the petitioners.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that what is to be considered at the time of framing of charge is whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding against the accused petitioners. Counsel submitted that the uncle of deceased Laxmi has categorically stated that a child was born out on the wedlock of petitioner Dungar Singh and deceased Laxmi and the petitioner used to treat the deceased with cruelty and hence the essential ingredients for offence under Section 498A as well as under Section 306 of the IPC are made out against the petitioners. Counsel urged that the petition was without merit and the same be dismissed.