SHOWKAT AHMAD TEESA Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Bilal Ahmad Dar S/O Ghulam Mohammad Dar R/O Lazbal, Kadipora, Anantnag, lodged a written report before the authorities of the Police Post, Sher Bagh, Anantnag, on 09-07-2016 at about 1400 hrs., stating therein that the accused - Showkat Ahmad Teesa S/O Ghulam Qadir Teesa R/O Kadipora, Anantnag, caught hold of his mother-Mst. Fatima Bano, at Kadipora, Anantnag, subjected her to beating, as a consequence of which, she gave up the ghost. In furtherance of this report, a case F.I.R bearing No. 196/2016, for an offence under section 302, was registered against the accused, with which the investigation commenced. After the conclusion of the investigation of the case, the police authorities laid a report in terms of Section 173 Cr.PC against the accused, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, for an offence under section 304 RPC. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 06-10-2016, committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, at Anantnag, under section 205-D Cr.PC.

(2.) By order dated 20-02-2017, the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag, directed that from the perusal of the material/evidence, in particular the ocular evidence, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there are sufficient grounds to presume that the accused, in furtherance of an intention to cause the death of the deceased, has beaten and assaulted the deceased, and has, thus, committed an offence punishable under section 302 RPC.

(3.) The accused/petitioner filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 20.02.2017, of the learned Session Judge, Anantnag, impugned herein, on the grounds, inter alia, that the same amounts to the abuse of the process of Court and it has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The Learned Sessions Judge, in terms of the order impugned has held that a, prima-facie, case against the petitioner/accused is made out for the commission of an offence, under section 302 RPC and, has, accordingly, charged him for the commission of the said offence. He has proceeded to state that although he brought it to the notice of the Court below that no case is made out against him, yet the learned Judge, framed a formal charge against him by dint of the impugned order. It is further pleaded that the trial Court did not consider the material on record to find out whether the ingredients of the offence under section 302 RPC are made out in the case. Neither the offence under section 302 RPC, with which the petitioner has been charged, nor an offence under section 304 RPC, under which the charge sheet has been laid before the Court in terms of section 173 Cr.PC can be said to have been committed by the accused taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court below, after taking a cue from the statements of some witnesses, has erroneously concluded that the accused/petitioner has committed the offence under section 302 RPC. The order is bad and perverse. It cannot sustain in the eyes of the law and is liable to be quashed along with the charge sheet.