Criminal Revision No. 973 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 973 of 2007
Date of decision:- 31.7.2008
Amit Kumar and others ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Bimlesh Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra, Advocate and
Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Navneet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Jaiveer Yadav, Advocate
RAJESH BINDAL J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul dated 24.3.2007 whereby
charges were framed against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 506 and
313 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned
court below has gone wrong in framing charge against the petitioners under
Section 313 I.P.C. The material before the court was not sufficient for
prima facie forming an opinion that the offence under Section 313 I.P.C.
was committed by the petitioners. It was merely a medical report on the
basis of which the charge was framed which always did not support the case
of the prosecution. He further submitted the fact that the allegations against
the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 406 IPC were found
to be false, shows the conduct of the complainant that the false allegations
are being levelled against the petitioners. Prayer is for setting aside the
order passed by the learned court below framing charge against the
petitioners under Section 313 IPC.
Criminal Revision No. 973 of 2007 2
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that at the time of framing of charge the court has merely to see
prima facie case. It is not recording conviction. In case after trial sufficient
material is not brought on record by the prosecution, the petitioners will be
acquitted of the charge. He further submitted that the statements of two
main witnesses have already been recorded. The next date of hearing is
fixed for 2.8.2008 and conclusion of trial is not going to take long. Even on
merits the submission is that besides the medical report, there is oral
statement of the complainant stating that it was on account of beatings by
the petitioners that she aborted her foetus. Accordingly, offence under
Section 313 IPC was clearly made out.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusing
the impugned order, I do not find any justification to interfere therein. It is
not a case that the petitioners have been found to be guilty of charge under
Section 313 IPC only. The charges also have been framed against the
petitioners under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC. Even if the argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted still the trial is to continue for
other two charges framed against the petitioners. As is noticed above at the
stage of framing of charge merely prima facie case is seen. In case
prosecution fails to bring sufficient material on record, petitioners will not
be acquitted of the charge under Section 313 IPC. No prejudice as such has
been caused to the petitioners merely by framing of charge under Section
313 IPC, when the petitioners in any case are facing trial. Effort is to scuttle
the trial at the initial stage, which cannot be appreciated.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find it to be fit case
to set aside the impugned order. Even otherwise as it is submitted the trial
is already in progress. Statements of two main witnesses have already been
recorded. At this stage it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere
in the impugned order.
The petition is dismissed.
July 31, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) ritu-II JUDGE