In a revision petition, the High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside a trial court order that had framed charges against the applicant for matrimonial offences.
The charge framed against the applicant under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was set aside, and the applicant was discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved On 11.09.2019
Order Delivered On 10.12.2019
CRR No. 1003 of 2019
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Applicant For State
: Mr. Hemant Gupta, Adv. : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, PL
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C.A.V. Order
10.12.2019
2
four persons namely Heeralal Jangde (husband), Surajmal Jangde (father-in-law), Kamin Bai (mother-in-law), Sanjay Kumar Jangde (brother-in-law). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against four accused persons including present applicant.
3
249].
2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426
3 (2000) 5 SCC 207: 2000 SCC (Cri) 935
4
Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P.4 ”
“10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out;
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial;
(3) The test of determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By ad large whoever if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused;
4 (2014) 16 SCC 551: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 536
5
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of Code the Judge which under the present Code is senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”
Sd/(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE
Vijay Sahu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is prima facie evidence of the applicant's specific involvement in the offence despite being a distant relative.
Whether the charge framing against the applicant was mechanical without specific allegations of torture or harassment.
Whether the trial court erred in framing charges against an individual who did not reside with the matrimonial household.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Subba Rao and Others v. State of TelanganaRelied on¶22
[2018) 14 SCC 452] · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar SamalRelied on¶22
[1978 LawSuit (SC) 324]
State of Bihar v. Ramesh SinghRelied on¶22
[1997 LawSuit (SC) 249]
Kans Raj v. State of PunjabReferred¶28
Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P.Referred¶28
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjay Kumar Jangde
State Of Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
