Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24674 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 851 of 2022 1 - Ratna Tiwari W/o Bhartendu Tiwari Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ward No. 01 Ramnagar, Kawardha (Dullapur, Rabeli, Pipariya, Kawardha, Mentioned In The Order Sheet), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Sandhya Pandey W/o Shushil Pandey Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ramnagar, Kabirdham (Kawardha), (Shivaji Colony Kawardha Mentioned In The Order Sheet), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Nirmala Tiwari W/o Dahlu Prasad Tiwari Aged About 68 Years, R/o Village - Dullapur, Rabeli, Pipariya, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Applicants RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Mahila Thana, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, having perused the material filed by the prosecution and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, it cannot be held that the trial Court has wrongly framed the charge as aforementioned against the applicant. This Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient material available on record for the ingredients for which, the charge has been framed against the applicant. 9 10. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position noted above, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned for framing charge against the applicant. 11. Accordingly, the Revision, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 12. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 13. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar
Arguments
: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer ... Non-applicant(s) Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.06.2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), District- Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 87/2022, whereby charges under 2 Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant. The applicant, being dissatisfied with the said order, has preferred this petition seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that a written report was filed by the complainant before the Police Station - Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), alleging inter-alia that marriage of her daughter namely Saumya was solemnized on 15.06.2020 in Vipra Bhawan, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) with Avinash Tiwari, Resident of Village Dullapur, Post Rabeli, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). It is further alleged that at the time of marriage dowry was given as per the demand of the family members of Avinash Tiwari. It is stated in the written report that daughter of the complainant was working as Data Entry Operator on daily wages in District Panchayat – Kawardha, District – Kabirdham (C.G.). It is alleged that daughter of the complainant was subjected to cruelty by her husband Avinash, his mother Ratna Tiwari, Aunty Sandhya Pandey, Grande-mother Nirmala, Brother-in-law (Jija) Raja Mahraj and Sister Pappi on demand of dowry. The aforesaid commission of harassment and cruelty was told by deceased Saumya to her mother time to time. It is further stated that a written report was also filed by deceased Saumya before Superintendent of Police, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) but no action was taken and thereafter to make please the in-laws of deceased a fridge, bed, Sofa Set, Mixy, Dressing Table and Almirah was given again. It is alleged that on the written report preferred before Superintendent of 3 Police, the counseling was taken place in Women Cell, "Sakhi Center", Kawardha, District Kabirdham and thereafter a compromise was taken place and both husband and wife executed written compromise before notary on 12.02.2021 and thereafter the deceased namely Saumya was residing with Avinash under the compromise deed. It is alleged that on 24.07.2021 the deceased Saumya Tiwari gave birth a female child and during pregnancy the deceased was having some medical ailment due to which, her health started deteriorating. It is further alleged that on 26.10.2021 the deceased was hospitalized by her husband Avinash in District Hospital, Kawardha but due to her negligence complainant reached to hospital and have a talk with husband of the deceased Avinash to take the patient to higher center but husband of the deceased refused to do the same. It is further alleged that the patient Saumya was taken by the complainant to a private hospital of Dr. Siddharth Jain and thereafter she was hospitalized in Ayushman Hospital at Gobra Nawara on 31.10.2021 but after sometime she was referred to higher center and the deceased was hospitalized on 01.11.2021 in Life Birth Hospital at Raipur. It is further stated that on 02.11.2021 the deceased was hospitalized at Mekahara where she was shifted to ICU Ward. It is further alleged that the complainant tried to make conversation with in-laws of the deceased then she was informed that Avinash is on leave since last 15 days but he didn't visit to hospital to take care of her wife. It is further stated that on 06.11.2021 daughter of the complainant namely Saumya Tiwari died during treatment. It is alleged that the accused persons committed 4 an offence of harassing the daughter of complainant and she was subjected to cruelty by husband Avinash, his mother Ratna Tiwari, Aunty Sandhya Pandey, Grande-mother (Nani) Nirmala, brother-in- law Raja Mahraj and Sister Pappi. On the basis of written report the Police registered an offence bearing Crime No. 128/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code in Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Police arrested the petitioners, articles were seized, statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the entire investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Raipur (C.G.), where the Criminal Case No. 3335/2022 was registered. The case is triable by Sessions Judge, therefore, it was committed and after being transferred the case is pending before the learned Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for trial. 4. The petitioners were granted regular bail by this Court on 29.03.2022 in M.Cr.C. No. 481/2022 and 494/2022, whereas the other co-accused persons were granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.03.2022 and 12.04.2022 in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 216/2022 and 64/2022 respectively. The case was fixed for argument on charge where an application under Section 227 of CrPC was preferred before the learned trial Court for discharging of the applicants from the aforesaid offences as prima-facie no offence would be made out as ingredients of Section 304-B does not attract in this case. The 5 learned trial Court, after hearing the application under Section 227 of the CrPC rejected the same and opined that considering the documents submitted with the final report reveals that the present applicants are not entitled to be discharged as they have committed an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The learned trial court further prepared the charge-sheet against all 3 applicants whereby charges under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC was leveled against the present applicants, which was denied by them and claimed for trial. The impugned order dated 15.07.2022 and framing of charges in Session Trial No. 87/2022 is bad in law and perverse. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court erred in framing of charges under section 304-B and 34 of IPC against the present applicants, which is not according to law. The applicants have not committed an offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC or Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, no offence would be made out as the daughter of the complainant died of Hyponatremia during treatment due to lack of sodium in her body and under Section 304-B or 304 Part-II would not be made out. It is further submitted that the deceased and her husband were residing at Kawardha and during stay of deceased alongwith her husband at Kawardha, she suffered with medical ailment during her pregnancy period, from which she could not recover even after taking treatment at different hospital at Kawardha and Raipur, she died during course of her treatment of medical ailment, thus, it is clear that no offence 6 as alleged has been committed by the applicants, therefore, they are entitled to be discharged from the offences under Section 304 Part-II or Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is further submitted by the petitioners that as per the allegation mentioned in the FIR the husband of the deceased himself hospitalized her for treatment at Kawardha but her mother got her discharged from there and during the course of treatment at Mekahara Hospital, Raipur, she died, the husband of the deceased namely Avinash Tiwari met with a road accident and also hospitalized at that period and after death of the deceased, last rituals were performed at his home at Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), which shows that no offence has been committed by the petitioners. It is further submitted that as per the Central Discharge Card of deceased Saumya Tiwari from Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, it is clear that the cause of death is a disease namely Hyponatremia which means a condition that occurs when the level of sodium in the blood is too low, thus, it is clear that death of the deceased is not occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Hence, the impugned order of the trial Court framing charges under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC, against the applicants, is liable to be set- aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State supports the order impugned and further submits the FIR was initially registered for the offence under Section 304-B, 34 of the IPC. However, after completion of entire investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Section 304-B, 34 of the IPC. It was 7 also revealed that due to the mental and physical torture committed by the applicants and other co-accused, the deceased fell ill and ultimately died, and further there is sufficient material available on record to prove the charge framed against the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. In the matter of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057, it has been held that the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, the principle is reiterated that at this stage, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offence and only form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence and the relevant paras read as under:- “21. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused 8 under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. 22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.” 9.