BIKRAM CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application challenging an order dtd. 15/9/2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Sessions Case No. 3 (03) of 2018 arising out of Tollygunge Police Station Case No. 109 of 2017 dtd. 29/4/2017, thereby framing charges against the petitioner under Ss. 304 (Part-II), 279, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) On 29/4/2017 a suo motu FIR was lodged by the Police under Ss. 279, 338, 427 and 304A of the Penal Code against petitioner. During investigation, a charge under Sec. 304 (Part-II) of the Penal Code was added. A charge sheet was filed on 19/7/2017. On 9/10/2018 a prayer for discharge made by the petitioner under Sec. 227 of the Code was rejected by the learned trial Judge. The petitioner filed a revisional application against the said order. By an order dtd. 13/2/2019 passed in CRR No. 3241 of 2018, this Court was pleased to dismiss the same. Thereafter, the learned trial Court was pleased to frame charges.

(3.) Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the added opposite party/victim 's father, raised a preliminary point of nonmaintainability of this application and submitted as follows. No separate hearing was required to be given for framing of charges under Sec. 228 of the Code, especially when an extensive hearing had taken place in disposing of an application for discharge under Sec. 227 of the Code. In the present case, the order under Sec. 227 was, in fact, affirmed by the High Court in revision. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon 'ble Apex Court in Dinesh Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 137. On the point that a Court was required to record reasons only if it decided to discharge an accused, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SCC 122 and Om Wati vs. State, through Delhi Administration, (2001) 4 SCC 333. A second application, in the garb of Sec. 482 of the Code, on the self-same materials was not maintainable in the eyes of law. Moreover, this Court had no power to recall or review its own order in a second petition under Sec. 482 of the Code. After passing of the earlier order by this Court, there has been no change in circumstance. As regards, the scope of consideration under Ss. 227 and 228 of the Code, reliance was placed on Simrikhia vs. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC 437 and R. Annapurna vs. Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry, (2002) 10 SCC 401. At the stage under Sec. 227 of the Code, the Court would go by the standard of prima facie case as opposed to conclusive proof. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the allegations even under Sec. 482 of the Code. On the question of scope of interference under Sec. 482 of the Code at the stage of framing of charge, reliance was placed on State through CBI vs. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava, (2017) 15 SCC 560, Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 2017 and Indu Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 341. The factual issues raised during arguments could only be appreciated after recording of evidence.