JUDGMENT V.K. Chaturvedi, J.
1. Smt. Maharani and four others have preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 1.3.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 3, Bulandshahr in Session Trila No. 922 of 2004, State v. Amit Bhardwaj and Ors., under Section 307, 489A IPC & 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby after hearing counsel for the revisionists under Section 227, Cr.P.C., the court below ordered for framing of charges under Section 498A IPC & 3/4, D.P. Act against the present revisionists and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC alongwith 498A IPC & 3A, D.P.Act against non revisionist Suresh Chand.
2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.
3. It is contended that under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C., supplementary report should not be in the form of supplementary charge sheet and the illegality of any order can be challenged at any stage even after the trial.
4. It is next contended that even if the entire allegations no are taken to be true, even then no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out as the act of other accused Suresh Chand is individual. Under the facts and circumstances, no charge should be framed under Section 307 IPC.
5. I have perused the entire materials on record.
6. Brief facts of the case are that one Yogesh Kumar Sharma lodged a report on 24.6.2003 against all the revisionists, with the allegation that his sister Seema Sharma was wedded to Amit Bharadwaj (since deceased) about five years' back and after her marriage, all the revisionists named in the F.I.R. started taunting his sister for bringing inadequate dowry and demanded rupees three lacs for running a business and rupees one lac was given to Amit and his father. On 20.6.2003 Smt. Seema sharma was driven out of her matrimonial home by the accused revisionists, who told her to fetch rupees two lacs and then she will be allowed to live there. Accordingly, on 23.6.2003 a Panchayat was held and in that Panchayat, Amit Bharadwaj and his father Suresh Chand grappled with his sister Smt. Seema Sharma and Amit tried to strangulate her with. 'Chunri' with intent to kill her and Suresh Chand kicked her. The investigation was taken up by S.I. Govind Ram, who after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC & 3/4, D.P. Act, in which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 8.8.2003. Thereafter, on the application of Yogesh Kumar to Senior Police Officers with the affidavits of Rajendra, Mangal Sain Sharma, Pramod and Chhatrapal Sharma, further investigation was carried out under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. and second charge sheet in the form of supplementary report under Section 307 IPC was filed against all the accused, in which separate cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. The order by which second cognisance was taken by the Magistrate, was not challenged by the accused revisionists.
7. To appreciate the arguments, it is relevate to quote Section 173(1) & (2) and 173(8), Cr.P.C., which read as follows :
"173(1). Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
(2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of Information;
(c) names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and if so, whether with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170.
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner was may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
(8). Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub Section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub Sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-Section (2).
8. From a perusal of Section 173(8), Cr.P.C., it is clear that further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, further investigation is not precluded, and if the police submitted report under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C., that will be a supplementary report in terms of supplementary charge sheet.
9. Once cognizance of the offence was taken by the Magistrate, that does not bar further investigation. Even after the court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of police report first submitted against some of of the accused persons, it is open to the Police to conduct further investigation and in the subsequent investigation, if involvement of the persons who were not accused in the first charge sheet comes to the notice of Investigating Officer, he can submit a supplementary charge sheet against them and valid cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate against them on the basis of supplementary charge sheet. Cognizance by the Magistrate, does not bar further investigation.
10. In Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2000 Cri. L.J.746, it has been held by the Supreme Court that for framing of charges, reasons need not be recorded by the trial court.
11. In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, it is observed that" If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measure's to expedite the Court procedures and to chalk out measure to avert all road blocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order had been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. It is a salutary guideline that when orders rejecting or granting bail are passed, the Court should avoid expressing one way or other on contentions raised except in cases such as those falling within Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985."
12. In the case of State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Ors. reported in 2001 (42) ACC-39, the Apex Court held that at the stage of framing charge, the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record. Court not to consider the sufficiency of materials, but should examine the materials only with a view of a prima facie case of commission of offence.
13. Recently in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court-359, Three Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court has held that roving/fishing inquiry and mini trial at the stage of framing charge, is not permissible.
14. In the instant case, the trial court while passing order impugned has agreed with the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionists that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not established prima facie against these revisionists. These revisionists alongwith Suresh Chand and Amit Bharadwaj (since deceased) were named in the F.I.R. Suresh Chand is father of Amit Bharadwaj. On 23.6.2003 a Panchayat was held, in which Suresh Chand assisted Amit Bharadwaj while he tried to strangulate Smt. Seema Sharma by scarf and Suresh also kicked her. In the medical examination report of Seema Sharma, there are one red contusion of 8.00 cm. x 2 cm, on right side neck, the other contusion 2 c.m. x 3 c.m. at middle of neck and other red contusion 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. on left side neck, which prima facie confirm the factum of strangulation.
15. From the materials, it is prima facie found that all the accused demanded rupees three lacs in dowry, out of which rupees one lac was paid to them and for fetching dowry, Smt. Seema Sharma was treated with cruelty both mentally and physically, therefore, there is sufficient ground to charge all the accused revisionists for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and 3/4, D.P. Act and also sufficient evidence was found to charge accused Suresh Chand for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
16. The first information report was lodged by Yogesh Kumar, in which after investigation earlier police submitted charge sheet under Section 498A IPC & 3/4, D.P. Act against the revisionists but on further investigation, evidence of the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was also prima facie found and accordingly the Investigating Officer submitted supplementary report in the form of supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. Two trials are not permissible for one incident. Minor offence will merge automatically into the major offence, Since Panchayat was held when F.I.R. was lodged, accused Suresh Chand alongwith Amit Bharadwaj intended to kill Seema Sharma, there is prima facie evidence for framing charge against accused Suresh under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC also.
17. The trial court has not ordered for framing the charge under Section 307 IPC against present revisionists. The trial court only ordered for framing of charge under Section 498A IPC and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act against them and as again Suresh Chand (non revisionist), the trial court ordered for framing of charge apart from these Sections, also under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
18. In view of above discussion and after considering aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court and applying them to the facts of the present case where two charges i.e. against the revisionists Under Section 498A IPC & 3/4, Dowry Prohibition. Act and against non revisionist Suresh, apart from these sections, Under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, have been ordered to be framed, I am of the considered opinion that the standard of test and judgment which is finally applied before recording a finding of conviction against an accused, is not to be applied at the stage of framing the charge under Section 227, Cr.P.C rather only It has to be ascertained whether there was no sufficient ground for proceeding. Hence it is just a very strong suspicion based on the material on record, would be sufficient to frame the charge.
19. Accordingly, the order impugned does not suffer front any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
20. The revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed.