CrPC | Test Of Sufficiency Of Proof Not Applicable At Stage Of Framing Of Charge And Discharge Of Accused: J&K High Court

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani has clarified that the Magistrate, at the stage of framing charges, is not required to deeply scrutinize the evidence but merely assess whether the material collected during the investigation, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to convict the accused.

Citing Section 251-A of the erstwhile J&K CrPC (pari materia with Sec 239 of CrPC) the court observed,

“.. if the Magistrate is of the opinion that prima facie the case against the accused exists, the charge has to be framed and for the said purpose as also for discharge of an accused, the case set up by the prosecution including the statement of the witnesses on record ought to be taken on their face value without judging the truth and veracity of the same”

Background of the Case:

The case in question involved petitioners Bharat Bhushan Jolly and others, who sought the quashing of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Electricity), Jammu. The dispute arose following the marriage of respondent No. 6 to respondent No. 3 when Respondent No. 6 filed a complaint against the petitioners, who were relatives of her husband, under Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 109 (abetment) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

Following an investigation into the complaint, an FIR was registered, and a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners. The petitioners moved the court seeking discharge, arguing that the allegations were vague, baseless, and lacked specific instances of cruelty or dowry demand.

However, the Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the parties, rejected their plea for discharge and found sufficient material to frame charges against them.

The petitioners contended that respondent wife had failed to allege any specific instances of violence, cruelty, or dowry demands against them. They asserted that the complaint lacked substantial evidence to implicate them in the alleged offenses. Furthermore, they argued that they had no direct involvement in the matrimonial life of respondent No. 6, being distantly related to her husband.

On the other hand, the respondent wife opposed the petition, maintaining that the petitioners, along with her husband, had consistently demanded dowry and subjected her to physical and mental harassment. She further alleged that the petitioners encouraged her husband in his illegal actions, which resulted in substantial hardship for her and their minor son.

Court Observations:

Justice Wani, while examining the petition, reiterated the principles guiding the framing of charges. He observed that the legal standard at this preliminary stage is distinct from the sufficiency of proof tests required during the final adjudication.

The Magistrate, when assessing the charge sheet, must only determine whether the evidence gathered during the investigation, if unchallenged, would lead to the conviction of the accused. A deep examination of the veracity of evidence is not required at this stage, he underscored.

“.. what is sine-qua-non at the stage of framing of charge or discharge of an accused, there has to be proper application of mind by the Magistrate and the tests regarding sufficiency of proof which the court is required to apply at the final disposal of the case are not to be applied at the stage of framing of charge and discharge of an accused”, the court said.

The Court further noted that the charges against the accused were grounded in specific allegations of cruelty, harassment, and dowry demands made by respondent wife. Hence the Magistrate rightly rejected the petitioners' plea for discharge, finding that sufficient material existed to frame charges, and there was no requirement to deeply scrutinize the evidence at this stage, the court maintained.

Upholding the decision of the Judicial Magistrate, the court concluded that the impugned order did not warrant any interference. The petition was thus dismissed.

Case Title: Bharat Bhushan Jolly and ors Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 256

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment