LALIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Crimial P.C. read with Sec. 397/401 Crimial P.C. for quashing of charge-sheet dated 20.10.2015, whereby, charges have been framed under Sections 328,377,498-A read with Sec. 34 Penal Code in case FIR No. 65 dated

(2.) 9.2015 registered under Sections 328,34,377,498-A Penal Code at Police Station Women Cell, District Sonepat. A further prayer has also been made for quashing of order dated 25.2.2016, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner for remand of the case to the Magistrate has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the statement of victim recorded under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C., there was no allegation of unnatural sex and charges have been framed without considering the same. Initially the police prepared the request (Pulanda) for sending sample to the chemical examiner for analysis as it was suspected to be a case of poisoning but the charges were framed without having the FSL report, which was received on 12.2.2016. No common poison was detected. Learned counsel further contends that an application was also moved by the complainant for conducting re-examination of sample from CFSL, Hyderabad but the same was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter an application for dropping/altering the charge under Sec. 328 Crimial P.C. was moved by the petitioner to remand the case to learned Magistrate. Said application was dismissed on the ground that there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer/remand the matter, whereas, the Court can drop the charge at any stage even before pronouncement of the judgment. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Honourable the Apex Court in the case of CBI Vs. Karimullah Osan Khan, 2014(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 123 : 2014 (11) SCC 538, of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Tara Singh 1987 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 184, Ravi Karan Vs. State of Punjab 2003 (3) AICLR 764 and Lakhveer Singh Vs. Daljit Kaur and others passed in Crl. Revn. No. 1479 of 2013 on 3.5.2013, in support of his arguments.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that it is for the trial Court to alter the charge at the stage of trial if some material/evidence comes on record during trial. It is for the trial Court to see whether any alteration or modification of the charge is necessary after recording of evidence during trial. Learned State counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Honourable the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Salim Khan and another 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 314, in support of his contentions.