CHANDRABHAN SINGH SIKARWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 28. 9. 1994 passed by the Additional C. J. M. , Gwalior.

(2.) IT has arisen out of the following facts. One Smt. Rekha @ Guddi, the daughter of the petitioner, was wedded to Opposite Party No. 2, Ram Manohar Singh, on 16. 2. 1987. It was alleged that she was being harassed for bringing more dowry. There was a demand for a plot and a cooking gas and when it was not fulfilled she was tortured. She also wrote some letters in this connection. There was a litigation between the lady and her husband in the Court of Seventh A. D. J. initiated by the husband. In those proceedings there was a compromise between the parties and under the compromise the husband had taken the lady with him on 1. 4. 1992 and the Court fixed 10. 4. 1992. Certain directions were also given. The lady was not produced in Court thereafter. A Writ Petition No. 68/1993 was filed by the father of the lady in this Court and by order dated 19. 1. 1993 a Division Bench of this Court directed that an investigation be made immediately by a competent and Senior Police Officer and the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior was directed to entrust investigation to a Senior and Competent Officer not below the rank of Inspector. On the complaint a case Under Section 498-A was registered as Crime No. 457/93 against Ram Manohar and Jag Mohan Singh and one Ram Kishore. One of the accused did not appear. An application for bail was moved on behalf of the accused Ram Manohar Singh which was rejected. Another application was moved which too was rejected and it was directed that the case of Ram manohar Singh be separated and tried. At the stage of framing charge it was contended on behalf of the prosecution that as the lady Rekha @ Guddi was not produced inspite of directions nor any intimation was given a charge Under Sections 304-B, 306 and 201 I. P. C. be framed. On behalf of the accused it was contended that charge-sheet was submitted Under Sections 498-A/34, I. P. C. alone, hence no other charge could be framed. The learned Trial Court considered the respective contentions of the parties as well as the material on record and concluded that both the accused persons facing trial could be charged Under Section 498-A and Sections 498-A/34 I. P. C. respectively and it framed charges accordingly by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved this revision petition has been preferred by the complainant.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist argued vehemently that in the present case there is sufficient material on record to show that the lady Rekha @ Guddi was not produced before the Court inspite of the directions of the Court and the Police was in league with the accused persons and it did not make proper investigation inspite of specific directions of Division Bench of this Court. Hence it should be taken that the lady has been done to death and a charge Under Sections 302, 306/ 34, I. P. C. should have been framed. The learned Trial Court committed an error in not framing a charge accordingly.