CHHOTU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the orders dated 9. 8. 1994 (Annexure P-l) and 13. 3. 1995 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, as well as for quashing the charge-sheet dated 22. 2. 1996 (Annexure P-2 ).

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Smt. Vijayshri, aged about 20 years, was married to the petitioner Chhotu Ram about three years prior to the date of occurrence. After her marriage, she alleged to have been harassed and treated with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry and not meeting the demand thereof by her husband, the present petitioner, Smt. Maina Devi her mother-in-law and Roshni Devi her sister-in-law. Ultimately, Vijayshri died on 19. 7. 1993 due to burn injuries at her in-laws' house. First Information Report No. 95 dated 22. 7. 1993 was registered at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, on the basis of statement made by Shri Hardeva Ram, father of the deceased. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code was filed by the police against the present petitioner and his mother Maina Devi for the offences under Sections 498-A/304-B, Indian Penal Code. After complying with the necessary formalities as required by law, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Dissatisfied with the investigation made by the police Shri Hardeva Ram filed a complaint under Sections 304-B/498-A, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. , against the petitioner, his mother Smt. Maina Devi and sister Smt. Roshni Devi. The Judicial Magistrate, after recording the preliminary evidence in support of the said complaint, summoned Roshni Devi to stand trial for the offences by order dated 11. 4. 1994 and thereafter, after complying with the necessary formalities, as required by law, committed that case also to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) ON 12. 1. 1995, the persent petitioner moved an application that the evidence should be recorded separately in the complaint case and the case based on the police report. This request was opposed by the prosecution. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 13. 3. 1995 (Annexure Bki4) rejected the application on the gound that if the request of the accused is allowed, the same would amount to reviewing the earlier order dated 9. 8. 1994 (Annexure P-l), whereby both the cases were clubbed and ordered to be tried together. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-petitioner has filed the present petition.