Dismissed

Chandan Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2019A482/5026/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged the Sessions Judge's order dismissing a discharge application and framing charges in a dowry death case. Relying on precedents regarding the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court held that framing of charges is a tentative view and reversal of such an order is not warranted at this stage. The application was dismissed, directing the trial court to proceed without adjourn

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; trial court directed to decide case under Section 309 Cr.P.C. without unnecessary adjournments.

Chandan Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5026 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Chandan Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav,Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This case has been assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 7.2.2019.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash impugned order dated 16.1.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Mau in S.T. No. 438 of 2018(State vs. Chandan Verma) arising out of Case Crime No. 288 of 2018, under sections 304-B, 498-A IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohammadabad, District Mau whereby application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. Prayer has also been made for quashing of entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.

¶8

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against Chandan Verma, Harishchadra Verma and Mother of Chandan Verma alleging that the marriage of deceased Neetu (sister of complainant) was solemnized with Chandan Verma, they demanded dowry from the deceased for which the deceased was being tortured and beaten by them and on 18.7.2018 they killed Neetu. After investigation charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and discharge application moved was dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that charges have been framed by the Court concerned.

¶9

Sections 227 and 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure are reproduced as below:-

¶10

Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

¶11

Section 228 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 228. Framing of charge.

¶12

(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-

¶13

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant- cases instituted on a police report;

¶14

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

¶15

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.

¶16

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659, where a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court, after noting three pairs of sections viz. (i) Sections 227 and 228 insofar as sessions trial is concerned; (ii) Sections 239 and 240 relatable to trial of warrant cases; and (iii) Sections 245(1) and (2) qua trial of summons cases, which dealt with the question of framing of charge or discharge, stated thus:

¶17

"if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."

¶18

In the case of Nemichand Jain vs. Roshanlal and others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 461 Hon'ble Supreme

¶19

Court has held that at the Stage of framing charges, the High Court should not have considered the whole evidence and then concluded that there were no materials to frame charges under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the case on the basis of the charges framed by Sessions Court under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

¶20

In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and others reported in JT 2012(9) SC 312 the Apex Court has held that once the High Court itself was of the opinion that clear facts and correctness of the allegations made can be examined only upon full trial, where was the need for the Court to quash the charge under Section 306 at that stage. Framing of charge is a kind of tentative view that the trial court forms in terms of Section 228 which is subject to final culmination of the proceedings. Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court and directed the trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

¶21

It is also pertinent to mention here that applicant will have opportunity to produce his evidence before the Court below at the defence stage.

¶22

Trial Court is directed to decide the case according to section 309 Cr.P.C. without giving unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶23

With above observations, the application is dismissed finally.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.2.2019 A. Singh

Chandan Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mirul Hassan and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Harikishan @ Harikrishna Vs State of U.P.

Satya Kumar Mishra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Meena Devi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Lalaram and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another