PRAHLAD Vs. RAJ KUMAR & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Prahlad, complainant, against the order dated 1.7.2004 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Sikar in Sessions Case No. 26, of 2004 whereby trial Court dismissed the application filed under Sec. 216 Crimial P.C. to alter charge.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on the basis of the written report dated 10.3.2004 of the petitioner F.I.R. No. 27 of 2004 was registered with Police Station Losal for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against accused persons Panna Ram, wife of Parma Ram, Raju @ Raj Kumar and daughter of Parma Ram. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused named in the F.I.R. have harassed and thereby caused dowry death of bride Sunita. After registering aforesaid report, the police started investigation into the matter and statements of witnesses were recorded. Mrig F.I.R. No. 1/2004 registered under Sec. 174 Crimial P.C. with Police Station Losal and its material was also included in the case of crime F.I.R. No. 27 of 2004. After investigation the police filed charge sheet dated 20.5.2004 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Sikar against accused-respondent Raj Kumar only. After filing the charge sheet, the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against accused Raj Kumar and committed him to the Court of Sessions Judge Sikar, who transferred case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Sikar for trial. The petitioner filed application under Sec. 216 Crimial P.C. through Public Prosecutor on 1.7.2004. In the application it was mentioned that the accused Raj Kumar forced Sunita to commit suicide and she has suicide by hanging herself and on the other hand he stated in the application that accused Rajkumar killed Sunita and charge should be framed under Sec. 304-B instead of Sec. 306 I.P.C. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 1.7.2004 directed for amending charge 498 to 498-A but in relation to Sec. 304-B I.P.C., the trial Court given the reasoning that the 'charge sheet was filed by the police under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. and thereafter the trial Court framed charge under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. vide order dated 14.6.2004. The petitioner filed S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 741 of 2004 challenging the order dated 14.6.2004 for framing the charge under Sec. 304-B I.P.C. instead of 306 I.P.C. By the order of even date the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. But by filing application under Sec. 216 Crimial P.C. the petitioner wants to again made the same prayer which was already made by him in the earlier revision petition. The prosecution has already closed its evidence, statement of accused under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. has been recorded and the matter is at the stage of final arguments. No such new documentary or any other evidence was produced for altering the charge to that of Sec. 304-B I.P.C. instead of Sec. 306 I.P.C. At this stage this Court cannot make any comments in respect of evidence produced by the prosecution during trial. Any observations on the application under Sec. 216 Crimial P.C. filed by the complainant at this stage will amount to prejudice the case of the prosecution. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has given reasoned order in rejecting the application. The order does not call for any interference by this Court under the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being devoid of merit stands rejected. As the main petition has been disposed', the stay application also stands disposed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. Revision dismissed.