BINDU SABU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.5.2008 of Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No. 7 Jaipur City Jaipur whereby he framed charge under Secs. 306 & 201 IPC against the accused petitioner in sessions case No. 15/07. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Smt. Bindu Sabu who is daughter-in-law of the complainant, an FIR No. 106/97 dated 8.3.97 came to be registered at Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur City on the basis of a written complaint filed by one Ram Prasad Sabu against her that his daughter in law Bindu Sabu and one Mahaveer Pratap poisoned his son deceased Jamna Prasad Sabu on 20.2.1997 and on account of that he committed suicide as the family had objected to her illicit relationship with Mahaveer Pratap, who was also made an accused in the FIR. After investigation the police has submitted negative report on 16.1.2002 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 12 Jaipur City Jaipur. Thereafter vide his order dated 4.2.2006 the ACJM took cognizance under sections 306 and 120 B IPC and summoned the petitioner and Mahaveer Pratap by arrest warrants. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No. 7 Jaipur City Jaipur has framed charges against the accused petitioner under section 306 and 201 IPC vide his order dated 23.5.2008. This misc. petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order framing charge against the accused petitioner.

(2.) Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel appearing For the accused petitioner has contended that the orders dated 23.5.2008 and 4.2.2006 have not been passed in accordance with law. The complaint filed by the complainant is wholly baseless, false and fabricated and filed only with purpose of harassing the petitioner and setting personal scores. After investigation the police has submitted a negative report. The complainant though personally present at the time of Panchanama on 20.2.1997 waited for 18 days to file complaint only to create false evidence and prepare false witnesses who would give statements as desired by him and he has not filed a protest petition. The conduct of the complainant in not filing the protest petition immediately is also sufficient proof of his intention to keep the proceedings pending against the petitioner simply to abuse the process of court. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the accused petitioner has contended that on the contrary in fact the complainant and his family are liable to be tried for offence under section 306 IPC and also for giving false witness and creating false evidence. It was in fact the complainant and his family who caused distress and depression to deceased Jamna Prasad Sabu by abusing, accusing and embarrassing the deceased and the petitioner on 18.2.1997 at Jodhpur. He has further pointed that even if for the sake of arguments, the allegation of illicit and adulterous relationship is taken to be true feven then as per the case of the prosecution itself Jamna Prasad Sabu had never objected to the relationship or meeting of the petitioner with his friend Mahaveer Pratap and it is only an after thought of the complainant to implicate the petitioner in a false criminal case. He has further contended that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the first instance erred in taking cognizance vide his order dated 4.2.2006 without proper application of mind and without appreciating that there was sufficient material on record speaking aloud about the conduct of the complainant. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has also erred in exercising his jurisdiction as he failed to give reasons for rejecting the F.R. submitted by the investigating agencies more so when on the very on set the Magistrate has rejected the need to examine the witnesses and record their statements under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He has further contended that the Additional Sessions Judge has also erred in not realizing that infact the order dated 4.2.2006 itself was erroneous and framed charges under section 306 and 201 IPC contrary to his own finding that no evidence was available on record as to abetment of suicide.. Hence ultimately he requested to this court that the order dated 23.5.2008 (Annexure-4) passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Fast Track No. 7 Jaipur City Jaipur be quashed and set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Samunder Singh, counsel for the complainant and Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State have contended that the accused petitioner has illicit relationship with Mahaveer Pratap. Due to this reason deceased was mentally tortured and he has committed suicide. Further he has drawn attention of this court towards the order of the Additional Sessions Judge wherein it was observed as under: