RISHIKESH MEENA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two revisional applications being CRR 804 of 2024 and CRR 1112 of 2024 are disposed of by a common order as in CRR 804 of 2024 the subject matter of challenge relates to the order dtd. 1/2/2024 passed in Sessions Case no. 78/23 wherein the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta was pleased to dismiss the application for discharge prayed on behalf of the present petitioner by way of an application dtd. 19/12/2023; while in CRR 1112 of 2024 the subject matter of challenge is an order dtd. 19/2/2024 wherein the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 78/23 was pleased to frame charges against the petitioner under Sec. 498A/307/494/336 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Mr. P. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner challenged both the orders passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court on the grounds that the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court failed to appreciate the earlier order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta as also did not adhere to the relevant provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to sessions triable case. According to the learned Advocate there are no materials to frame charges under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court acted as a post office and without perusing the materials available in the documents on which the prosecution has relied upon to prove its case mechanically framed the charges. Learned Advocate took strong exception with regard to the evidence of PW1 being taken into account, which was recorded by the learned Magistrate and submitted that the same cannot be looked into while considering the charges and the learned Sessions Judge in fact, took the same into consideration while dismissing the application for discharge which was filed on behalf of the petitioner and automatically framed the charges under Ss. 498A/307/494/336 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Advocate emphasised that the provision of Sec. 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been wrongly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge and nowhere the prejudice caused to the accused was considered as the relevant provisions of Sec. 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were totally ignored. According to the learned Advocate, under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Sessions Court is restricted to look only in respect of the materials which were collected by the investigating agency in course of investigation and there is no provision which would allow the learned Sessions Court to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which was recorded by the learned Magistrate. To substantiate his argument learned Advocate relied upon certain authorities which included judgements of different High Courts and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of High Court of Gujarat being Vasurbahi Bhurabhai Bela 'Vs. ' State of Gujarat in R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 7660 of 2021, emphasise was laid on paragraph 34 which is as follows:

(3.) Petitioner also relied upon a judgment of High Court of Delhi being Shankar @ Gori Shankar 'Vs. ' State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. in CRL.MC.42/2023 and CRL.M.A. 142/2023 (Stay) and attention of the Court was drawn to the following paragraphs: