MUKTA DEVI Vs. PRASANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUKTA Devi is the complainant in FIR No. 229 dated 20.9.2000 under Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Chandhut, District Faridabad. As per the allegations made in the petition, she had been married with Pritam son of Sahmal on 24.6.1993 in Palwal, District Faridabad. She thereafter lodged the aforesaid FIR on the basis of which a charge was framed against the accused vide order dated 16.1.2003 under Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid matter, the accused filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, who set-aside the order of framing of charge against all the accused-respondents except Pritam and thereby discharged the accused vide order dated 15.5.2003. However, against Pritam, he partly accepted the revision under Section 506 IPC only. This order has been impugned in these proceedings by the complainant, Mukta Devi.

(2.) A bare reading of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge would reveal that he had examined the record as if he would determine the issue after leading evidence and in a trial. He has also weighed the correctness of the allegations made in the FIR and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to arrive at a conclusion that no case had been made out against the accused. To my mind, this procedure cannot be applied at the time of framing of the charge, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan and another, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 314 wherein it has been observed as under :-