Full Judgment
Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.
1. The informant is aggrieved by order dated 17-6-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 1038/2005 by which he allowed the discharge petition of O.P. No. 2.
2. The informant's daughter, namely, Sangita Devi, was married to one Raj Kumar, son of O.P. No. 2, Rajmati Devi, wife of Triyug Choudhary, on 3-12-2004. The O.P. No. 2 is mother-in-law.
3. The informant alleged that her daughter complained by Mobile Phone that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and dewar are torturing her. However, the informant in her subsequent statement did not make any allegation against her mother-in-law, O.P. No. 2.
4. The learned trial Court discharged the O.P. No. 2 vide his impugned order dated 17-6-2006 stating therein, that even the eldest daughter of deceased Sangita Devi who was examined twice by the I.O. in course of investigation, did not make any allegation against the O.P. No. 2. The Court below further noticed that there is no evidence at all in the case diary showing the complicity of the O.P. No. 2. He further noticed that none of the witnesses including the informant have deposed about the complicity of the O.P. No. 2 in this case.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh reported in : AIR 1977 SC 2018 as well as in the case of Bharath Singh v. The State of Bihar reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 368. The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Singh (supra) has held that charge can be framed on a grave suspicion also. The Apex Court further held that:
The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or 228 of the Code.
In other words that Court at the stage of framing of charge is not to look at the sufficiency of the material for warranting conviction.'
Similarly in the case of Bharath Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:At the stage of framing of charge, the truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously examined or evaluated.
6. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted above. In this case the trial Court has found that no witness was supported the prosecution case and even the informant has not made any allegation against the accused. The materials on record do not bring the case of discharged accused under purview of even strong suspicion.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy reported in : AIR 1977 SC 1489 has held that:
In the exercise of this wholesome power, under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
8. As noticed above, it appears that neither the informant nor any other witnesses have supported the allegation against the accused. As such the trial Court has rightly allowed the petition of O.P. No. 2 by discharging him.
9. It appears that this case is of the year 2006 and this Court is informed that uptil now, not a single witness has turned up to depose in the Court.
10. In the circumstances, the trial Court is directed to take all possible steps, so that the witness may appear in the Court without any fear.
11. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid observations this revision application is disposed of.