JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in S.T. Case No. 90 of 2022 whereby and where under, the learned trial court has framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 304B of Indian Penal Code and alternatively under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far seven prosecution witnesses have been examined after framing of the charge and the case is next fixed to 11.11.2025 for recording of further evidence. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is accused of having committed the offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. Charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was also taken against the petitioner under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. At the time of framing of charge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella has recorded that there is sufficient material to frame charges under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code but alternatively the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code has also been framed against the petitioner. 5. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jasvinder Saini & Ors. vs. State (Government of NCT Of Delhi) reported in (2013) 7 SCC 256 , wherein the Two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the facts of that case, where the trial court recorded a specific finding at the time of framing of charge on 18.03.2009, that against the appellants of that case, who were the accused person of the case, there is no material for framing of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code but subsequently, by passing a order on 23.02.2011 the trial court directed addition of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code; under such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that addition of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code cannot be justified on the basis of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. vs. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 15 SCC 116 , paragraph no.7 of which reads as under:- ‘’7. We further direct all the trial courts in India to ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of Section 304- B, so that death sentences can be imposed in such heinous and barbaric crimes against women. Copy of this order be sent to the Registrars General/Registrars of all High Courts, which will circulate it to all trial courts.’’ 6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of Jasvinder Saini & Ors. vs. State (Government of NCT Of Delhi) (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside the order of the trial court of framing of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and remitted the matter back to the trial court for a fresh order keeping in view the observation made in the said judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in paragraph no. 14 of the case of Jasvinder Saini & Ors. vs. State (Government of NCT Of Delhi) (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that in its opinion the true purport of the order of the two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (supra) was that the direction in paragraph no. 7 of that Judgment was not meant to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of the evidence available in the case and what the judgement in Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (supra) meant to say was that, in a case when charge alleging dowry death is framed, the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code can also be framed; if the evidence otherwise permits. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the prosecution is improbable. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the prosecution is improbable. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer. It is submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that a Magistrate taking cognizance on a police report is duty bound to take cognizance to only the offences in respect of which the charge sheet is submitted. He can neither add nor delete any offence mentioned in the charge sheet and the appropriate time to consider, whether the materials in the record are sufficient to frame any charge other than the one mentioned in the charge sheet, is the stage of framing of charge. It is next submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that the petitioner never filed any petition for discharge. The learned trial court has framed an additional charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code based on the materials in the record. Unlike the case of Jasvinder Saini & Ors. vs. State (Government of NCT Of Delhi) (supra), in this case, the trial court had, at no point of time prior to framing of charge, opined that from the materials available in the record, the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140 , paragraph no. 35 of which reads as under:- ‘’35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6805. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it.’’ it is submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in no uncertain manner, has reiterated the law that when faced with conflicting judgment of Benches of equal strength of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts as has been held by the Five Judge Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in ( 2017) 16 SCC 6805 8. It is next submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor by drawing attention of this Court to Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the same mandates that where it is doubtful, that what offence has been committed, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of the offence or the accused may be charged in alternative with having committed someone of the said offence. It is then submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that paragraph no. 7 of the judgment of Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (supra) still holds the field and has not been overruled and the same mandates the trial court to ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code and the same is binding upon all the trial courts of India, in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. vs. State of Haryana (supra) still holds the field and has not been overruled and the same mandates the trial court to ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code and the same is binding upon all the trial courts of India, in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is next submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that there is specific provision in shape of Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the trial court to alter any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced and admittedly, the petitioner has never approached the trial court under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure and straightway filed the application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure hence, the same is not maintainable more so in the absence of any exceptional circumstance. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 239 , paragraph no. 7 of which reads as under:- ‘’7. In the backdrop of the factual position discussed above, the question formulated earlier arises for our consideration. The legal position is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge the court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. At the stage of charge the court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against them the court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases.’’ wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that when the petition filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of charge framed against them, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there is strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of process of the court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner has no grievance regarding framing of charge for the offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. The only grievance of the petitioner is regarding the framing of alternative charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The undisputed fact remains that paragraph no.7 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (supra) has not been overruled and still holds the field; in view of the settled principle of law reiterated in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference (supra). 11. The trial of the case has progressed substantially. Seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined. vs. State of Haryana (supra) has not been overruled and still holds the field; in view of the settled principle of law reiterated in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference (supra). 11. The trial of the case has progressed substantially. Seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined. There is an avenue for the petitioner in approaching the trial court for alteration of charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. which has not been availed by the petitioner. There is absolutely no material before this Court as to see what are the materials basing upon which charge has been framed against the petitioner but the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner never filed any application for discharge. If there are sufficient material in the record to frame an alternative charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code but the same is not framed, then the petitioner can take the plea, that he cannot be convicted of the said offence and he has been prejudiced by non-framing of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code whereas, even if there is no sufficient material to frame the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code but still the same is allowed to be retained, there is unlikely that any prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any strong reason to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of process of the court the charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed; which is the sine-qua-non for exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge framed against the petitioner; as has been reiterated in the case of State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & Ors. (supra). 13. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any material to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 14. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.