AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (10) TMI 987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;Cr.P.C.')? 3. On receipt of a report regarding the murder of one Smt. Sudesh, who was the daughter-in-law of respondent 1 and wife of respondent 2, the police made an investigation and laid a challan against the three respondents under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, on consideration of the challan and the papers filed along with it, framed charges under Section 498-A/34 IPC against all the three respondents and under Section 304/34 I.P.C. against the respondent 1 and 2 vide the order dated 19th February, 1996. The charge under Section 304/34 I.P.C, which is relevant for the purpose of this proceeding is to the following effect: And secondly, that you Veer Bhan Gulati and Smt. Gian Devi,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersonal appearance in Court. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: In view of what has been ordered above the learned Counsel for the petitioners prays that without prejudice to the pleas which the petitioners may like to take after the recording of the medical evidence, the present petition be dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, it is dismissed as withdrawn. In compliance with the direction in the High Court order, the Addl. Sessions Judge recorded the evidence of the doctors i.e. Dr. S.K. Verma (PW-1), Dr. Nagendra Prasad (PW-2), Dr. V.V. Gupta (PW-3) and V.P. Gupta (PW-5). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor representing the State informed the Court that the prosecution has no other medical evidence to be led i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 304/34 I.P.C could not have been legally framed against the said two petitioners and the same to secure the ends of justice, needs to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C." 5. Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant, contended that the High Court has clearly erred in passing the order quashing the charge as it has approached the case as if to determine whether the said charge framed against respondent 1 and 2 will succeed or not. This question, according to the learned Addl. Solicitor General, should not have been considered at a stage before the entire prosecution evidence has not come on record. 6. Shri S.L. Aneja, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. 8. In this connection we may refer to the case of Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari and Ors. etc. etc. 1990 CriLJ 669, in which a bench of three learned Judges of this Court referring to the decision in Mohd. Akbar Dar and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. 1981 Supp SCC 80, pointed out that at the stage of framing of charges meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by the Court is not required. This Court further observed: The High Court has also deemed it necessary to quash the charge against respondents 1 to 3 because in its opinion the evidence proposed to be adduced by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nslated into relevant evidence. Apart from the infirmity in the approach of the High Court in dealing with the matter which we have already noticed, we further find that instead of adverting to and confining its attention to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC the High Court has dealt with the rival contentions of the parties raised through their respective affidavits at length and on a threadbare discussion thereof passed the impugned order. The course so adopted cannot be supported; firstly, because finding regarding commission of an offence cannot be recorded on the basis of affidavit evidence and secondly, because at the stage of framing of charge the Court cannot usurp the functions of a trial court to delve into and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.... Judged in the light of the settled position of law as reiterated in the decisions noted above, the order under challenge in the present case ....