State of Uttarakhand v. Mohan Lal Others), whereby the discharge application filed by the Revisionist was

Judgment

1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the Revisionist Mohan Lal under Sections 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the Court of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2024 (State of Uttarakhand v. Mohan Lal & Others), whereby the discharge application filed by the Revisionist was rejected and charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC were framed against him.

The genesis of the matter lies in FIR No. 14 of 2024, registered on 18.01.2024 at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC, on the allegation that the deceased Prabha, wife of the Revisionist, was subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry and was ultimately killed by the Revisionist and his family members.

3. The investigation culminated in the submission of a charge-sheet against the Revisionist and his family members under Sections 498-A Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2024, Mohan lal Vs State of Uttarakhand- 1 Ashish Naithani J. and 304-B IPC.Upon consideration of the material on record, the learned trial court rejected the application for discharge and proceeded to frame charges against the Revisionist by the impugned order.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the Revisionist has preferred the present criminal revision seeking the setting aside of the order dated

17.09.2024 and his discharge from the case.

5. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 is unsustainable in law as the learned trial court has rejected the discharge application and framed charges in a mechanical manner, without due application of judicial mind.

6. It is urged that the FIR allegations regarding dowry demand and cruelty are omnibus, general, and motivated, levelled only to implicate the Revisionist and his family members falsely. The deceased, it is pointed out, had been residing at her parental home for about four months prior to the incident, and had returned to the matrimonial house only on 15.01.2024.

7. The defence seeks to rely upon an ultrasound report dated

16.01.2024 to contend that the deceased was pregnant with a child of another person, and upon learning of this, her family had sent her back to the house of the Revisionist. It is argued that the deceased, overwhelmed by the stigma, committed suicide, which has been wrongly projected as a case of dowry death.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant, Smt. Mohan Dei (mother of the deceased), initially claimed in the FIR that she had witnessed the incident of strangulation and hanging by the Revisionist and his family members. However, in her subsequent statement under Section 161 CrPC, she admitted that she was not an eyewitness, thereby rendering the core allegation of murder or dowry death wholly unreliable. Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2024, Mohan lal Vs State of Uttarakhand- 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. It is also contended that the post-mortem report does not disclose any injury marks or indications of cruelty soon before the death, and the absence of such findings rules out the allegation of homicidal death for dowry.

10. Learned counsel emphasises that one of the persons named in the FIR, namely Suraj, was exonerated during investigation and not charge- sheeted, although the role attributed to him was similar to that of the Revisionist. This selective implication, according to the Revisionist, indicates falsity of the prosecution case.

11. It is further argued that the order of the trial court is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, wherein it has been held that the power to discharge must be exercised where the material does not disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding.

12. On these premises, it is contended that the impugned order is perverse, based on conjectures and surmises, and results in miscarriage of justice. The Revisionist, therefore, prays that the order dated

17.09.2024 be set aside and he be discharged from the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.

13. Learned Brief holder appearing for the State submits that the order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It is argued that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to evaluate whether the material on record discloses a prima facie case, and not to conduct a meticulous analysis of evidence as would be done at the stage of trial.

14. It is contended that the FIR contains categorical allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty meted out by the Revisionist and his family to the deceased, followed by her unnatural death within seven years of marriage. In such circumstances, the statutory presumption Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2024, Mohan lal Vs State of Uttarakhand- 3 Ashish Naithani J. under Section 304-B IPC comes into play, which clearly justifies framing of charges.

15. Learned Counsel emphasises the statements of complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC lend sufficient support to the prosecution version. Minor contradictions between the FIR and subsequent statements, it is urged, are immaterial at this stage and cannot be a ground to discharge the accused.

16. With respect to the reliance placed on the ultrasound report, it is submitted that such documents are disputed in nature and cannot be considered in favour of the accused at the stage of framing of charges. Whether or not the deceased was pregnant, and if so, the circumstances surrounding the same, are all questions that fall within the domain of trial.

17. Learned Brief holder further argues that the post-mortem report does not exclude the possibility of death due to strangulation or hanging, and the ultimate cause of death being unnatural is undisputed. The precise nature of cruelty and its nexus with the death is a matter of evidence, and cannot be pre-judged at this preliminary stage.

18. It is also submitted that the acquittal of a co-accused or exoneration at the stage of investigation does not ipso facto exculpate the Revisionist. Each person’s culpability must be tested independently.

19. Learned counsel places reliance upon the principle laid down in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39, to contend that even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charges. It is argued that the judgments relied upon by the Revisionist, including Muniswamy, are distinguishable on facts, as in those cases no prima facie case existed at all, whereas in the present matter, the material clearly discloses sufficient grounds to proceed against the Revisionist. Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2024, Mohan lal Vs State of Uttarakhand- 4 Ashish Naithani J.

20. On the above grounds, it is submitted that the impugned order is sound, well-reasoned, and calls for no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.

21. 22. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. The question which arises for determination is whether the trial court committed any illegality or perversity in rejecting the discharge application and proceeding to frame charges against the Revisionist under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.

23. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous analysis of the evidence, weigh the probative value of each piece of material, or arrive at a definitive conclusion regarding guilt or innocence. The standard is one of “prima facie case” or “grave suspicion.” As held in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39, if the material placed on record, taken at face value, discloses the commission of an offence, it would be sufficient to frame charges and leave the matter to be tested in trial.

24. In the present case, the prosecution material is not confined to vague allegations. The FIR specifically attributes demand of dowry and cruelty to the Revisionist and his family. The deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage, which by itself attracts the presumption under Section 304-B IPC, subject of course to rebuttal at trial. At this stage, the Court cannot overlook the statutory mandate that the burden shifts upon the accused to explain circumstances leading to such a death.

25. The reliance on the post-mortem report by the Revisionist is also misplaced. The absence of visible injuries does not ipso facto negate dowry-related harassment or the possibility of death being caused in suspicious circumstances. The cause of death being hanging itself falls within the ambit of unnatural death, and coupled with allegations of Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2024, Mohan lal Vs State of Uttarakhand- 5 Ashish Naithani J. cruelty for dowry, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC stand satisfied at least for purposes of framing charges.

26. It must also be borne in mind that Section 498-A IPC criminalises cruelty itself, independent of dowry death. The statements of the complainant and other family members, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, contain material to suggest cruelty and harassment. Even if certain improvements or inconsistencies exist, those are matters for cross-examination, not for discharge.

27. The precedents relied upon by learned counsel for Revisionist, namely State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 and the Nupur Talwar case, do not advance his case. In Muniswamy, the Supreme Court intervened because there was no evidence whatsoever against the accused, rendering the continuation of trial an abuse of process.

28. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is not to be exercised as if it were an appeal. Unless the order of the trial court is shown to be manifestly perverse, grossly illegal, or suffering from jurisdictional error, interference is not warranted. The trial court, in the impugned order, has considered the material before it and applied its judicial mind to conclude that a prima facie case is made out. Such satisfaction, unless patently unreasonable, deserves deference.

29. Viewed thus, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order. The learned trial court has acted in accordance with law in rejecting the discharge application and framing charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC against the Revisionist. ORDER In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2024, Mohan lal Vs State of Uttarakhand- 6 Ashish Naithani J. Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2024 does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting interference revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ashish Naithani J.)

21.08.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd 40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283 D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2024, Mohan lal Vs State of Uttarakhand- 7 Ashish Naithani J.