Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 26th of April 2008 and 03rd of May 2008 which was passed by the Judge Special Court Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases (Manila Utpidan and Dahej Pakran), Kota in Criminal Session Case No. 13/2008 whereby the learned Special Court charge under Section 306, 498-A I.P.C. were framed against the petitioners. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.06.2006 a First Information Report No. 122/2006 was lodged at Mahila Police Station, Kota against the petitioners on the basis of the Merg Report No. 03/2006 in which it was stated that deceased Sanjida was married with Mohd. Ijaz in the year 1997 and thereafter she given birth two children and before one month operation of her abdomen was made and 1/2 Kg. Githan was removed from her stomach and on 11.06.2006 deceased Sanjida went out from house without told any persons of the family and on 11.06.2006 at night report of the Gumsudgi was lodged at Gumanpura Police Station, Kota.

2. On 12.06.2006 dead body of the Sanjida was found in the Canal and which was taken out by the staff of Nagar Nigam and informed to police and police taken in the hospital to said dead body and informed to petitioners. On 12.06.2006 Panchnama was prepared father and brother of the deceased was present in the hospital and no allegation was leveled against the petitioners at that time but after five days under influence and having intention submitted written report to Investigating officer and stated that deceased was torture and harassment by the husband and relative for dowry demand and further levelled allegation. After investigation the police has filed a challan and on the basis of the challan charge has been framed against the petitioners on 26th of April 2008 as well as on 3rd of May 2008.

3. Aggrieved against the said order of the charge, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

4. I Have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material made available on record.

5. Learned Counsel Mr. Govind Choudhary appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence collected by the police investigation agency because he has committed gross error of law in framing the charges under Sections 306 and 498a IPC against the petitioners but said charges not at all made out against the petitioners because marriage has been performed on 01st of March 1997 approximately before 10 years and after marriage deceased Sanjida lived with her husband Mohd. Ijaz as well as other members of the iniaws house very happy and joyful. Learned Counsel further contended that trial court has committed gross error of law in framing the charges under Sections 306, 498a IPC on the basis of in course of disease, in course of the medical treatment and in course of the operation her care was not done by the husband and his relative due to said negligence that is why she committed suicided herself but said allegations are absolutely false and fabricated because surgery of the abdomen and treatment was made in the private hospital by the husband and his relatives so that good and well treatment and care can be available to deceased but as per evidence it is clearly proved that she was not being negligent by the husband and other members of the iniaws but learned trial court was not appreciated said evidence and framed the charges under Sections 306 and 498 I.P.C. Hence, the Judgment of the learned trial court be quashed and set aside. In support of his case, learned Counsel has relied upon the following judgments:

(1). : AIR2007SC2457 titled as Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.

(2). 1999 Cri.L.R.141 titled as Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Anr.

(3). 2000 CriL.R 155 titled as Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

(4) 2002(1) CriL.R. 79 : RLW 2002(4) 2269 titled as Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan

6. On the other hand Mr. B.N. Sandu, Public Prosecutor drawn my attention to Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. read as under:

227. Discharge.- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution In this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

228. Framing of charge - (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which:

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall framed in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.

7. Accordingly Section 227 of Cr.P.C. provides that if upon consideration of the record of the case. and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf. the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. But no reasons are necessary to be recorded when the charges are framed against the accused persons.

8. The Honble Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Saha v. State of West Bengal : 2000CriLJ746 held that there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge.

9. Mr. Sandu has further contended that at the stage of passing the order in terms of Section 227 of the Code, the court has merely to peruse the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused if upon consideration, the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, the Judge must proceed to frame charge in terms of Section 228 of the Code. Only in a case where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone the Court can discharge the accused. The court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of evidence and material placed before it at this stage.

10. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja : 1979CriLJ1390 reminded the courts that at the initial stage of framing of charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The Court has therefore to consider the question of framing the charges on general considerations of the material placed fore it by the investigating agency. At this stage the truth, veracity and effect of the judgment which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding an accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. Even on the basis of a strong suspicion founded on materials before it, the Court can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that even be justified in framing the charges against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by them.

11. He has also relied upon the judgment of judgment in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh : 1977CriLJ1606 in which their Lordships of the Apex Court held as under:

If the scales of pan as. to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or Section 228 then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227.

12. He has further relied upon Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh : 1956CriLJ291 .

13. Mr. Sandu, relied upon Section 216 Cr.P.C. which provides that the court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. Section 216 reads as under:

216. Court may alter charge - (1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.

(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.

(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.

(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction had been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.

14. He has also relied upon the case of Smt. Omwati and Anr. v. State through Delhi Administration : 2001CriLJ1723 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:

The Supreme Court reminded the High Court of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for and unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.

15. For these reasons I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 26th of April 2008 and 3rd of May 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases (Manila Utpidan & Dahej Pakran), Kota in Criminal Sessions Case No. 13/2008 framing charge against the accused petitioners and revision petition stands dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

Stay

In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application also stands disposed of.