IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.39 of 2025 Murari Pasayat …. Petitioner Mr. B.K. Ragada, Advocate -Versus- SKhiradhar Pasayat & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate for O.P. No.1 CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING: 02.12.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:17.03.2026 1. Instant revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 442 BNSS is at the behest of the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 7th January, 2025 passed in connection with C.T. (Sessions) Case No.113 of 2024 by learned Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda arising out of 1CC Case No.56 of 2012, whereby, an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. demanding discharge by him was rejected on the grounds inter alia that such decision is legally not tenable and hence, therefore, liable to be interfered with and set aside in the interest of justice. 2. According to the petitioner, the complaint in 1CC Case No.56 of 2012 was filed by opposite party No.1 before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda alleging therein that on 1st December, 2010, he had given marriage of his elder daughter to the petitioner and after such marriage, the couple AFR stayed at Belpahad till 18th June, 2011 and during that time, she was subjected to torture on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demand by him, which was communicated to them several times and on 15th March, 2011, they went to the house of the petitioner and assured him to comply the demand gradually but even thereafter, the situation did not improve and finally on 29th June, 2011, received a call from his daughter about her life being in danger and on the next day i.e. on 30th June, 2011, he was informed about her death and it was learned that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. In connection with the death of the deceased, UD Case No.38 of 2011 was registered and the body of the deceased was subjected to inquest and post-mortem examination and thereafter, the complaint was filed and therein, the Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC, whereafter, it was challenged in CRLMC No.2213 of 2012, which was allowed in part and the order in respect of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was quashed. 3. According to the petitioner, no offences under Sections 306 and 304-B IPC are made out as its essential ingredients are totally absent, however, the learned court below issued process without considering the same. It is claimed by the petitioner that the deceased committed suicide due to her inferiority complex and frustration and the same is revealed from her suicide note collected by the police at Aurangabad. It is also claimed that the police recorded the statements of witnesses including the owner of the premises where the petitioner and the deceased wife used to reside and such enquiry was held independently and in spite of closure report in the UD case, the said fact was not disclosed by the complainant, when he was satisfied that the deceased daughter did commit suicide, inasmuch as, the post-mortem report suggested the death was due to hanging. A copy of the report is at Annexure-4 series referring to which and other relevant papers, such as, zimanama, inquest report and original death certificate, it is lastly pleaded by the petitioner that no case is made out and that too when the complaint is lodged almost after a year of the death of the deceased and therefore, the impugned order dated 7th January, 2025 of the learned court below rejecting his discharge and framing charge against him for the alleged offences under Sections 306, 304-B & 498-A IPC cannot be sustained in law. 4. Heard Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.1. 5. Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions, such as, Sunil Kumar Jha @ Bittu Jha and others Vrs. The State of Bihar (1997) 1 PLJR 466; Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vrs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 2991; Swamy Prahaladdas Vrs. State of M.P. and another 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438; Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2002 SC 1998; and Vedprakash Tarachand Bhaiji Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1995 MPLJ 458 while advancing an argument that the learned court below was not right and justified in declining discharge and framing of charge against the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 relied on Kans Raj Vrs. State of Punjab and others MANU/SC/0296/2000; Sushil Kumar Sharma Vrs. Union of India and others AIR 2005 SC 3100; and Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar Vrs. State of Karnataka AIR 2013 SC 329 while opposing the plea of the petitioner and justifying the rejection order at Annexure-1. 6. Perused the lower court record. 7. It is contended by Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the ingredients of Section 306 IPC nor that of Section 304-B IPC are satisfied even by considering the materials on record and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to discharge. It is submitted that the petitioner has not abetted the death of the deceased in any manner whatsoever, which is also confirmed by her suicide note. It is further submitted that even though, the death is pre-mature and it has taken place within seven years of marriage between the deceased and the petitioner, no offence under Section 304-B IPC is prima facie established as such death cannot be said to be on account of dowry demand and on account of cruelty or harassment meted out to her and it has not been duly taken judicial notice of by the learned court below at the time of considering the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the petitioner. Page 5 of 15 8. On the contrary, according to Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 and also State, there is sufficient material to suggest that soon after marriage, the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment in the hands of the petitioner demanding further dowry and such cruelty continued till her death at Aurangabad. The submission is that when there were continuous torture and cruelty and it all started within a short period of time after marriage and as result, the deceased committed suicide, the said fact cannot be ignored. It is contended that the death of the deceased is due to her humiliation when the dowry demand was not fulfilled. It is lastly contended that the petitioner being the husband is responsible for the alleged death of the deceased and that apart, the suicide note is scribed in Hindi, a language, which the deceased did not know how to write and in the aforesaid background, considering the complaint, learned court below did not commit any illegality in denying discharge and framing charge against the petitioner for the alleged offences vide Annexure-1 . 9. Referring to the UD case record, Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such complaint was received alleging any mischief against the petitioner or by claiming that the petitioner ill-treated the deceased soon before her death by suicide. The above contention is on the basis of the enquiry in the UD case and with its result followed by a closure report and therefore, it is claimed that any such further enquiry and trial would be a travesty of justice. It is also claimed that the complainant had no grievance earlier when the enquiry was held by the police at Aurangabad but for the reasons best known, the complaint was filed by him in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda followed by its commitment to the learned court below, which declined discharge of the petitioner. Admittedly, after the complaint was filed, the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda took cognizance of the alleged offences in 1CC Case No.56 of 2012 and but it has been confined to Sections 306 and 304-B IPC consequent upon the order of this Court in CRLMC No.2213 of 2012. Initially, the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda took cognizance of the offences including the one under Section 302 IPC but it was modified by this Court while disposing of the CRLMC. 10. The learned court below while considering the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. concluded that at the stage of framing of charge, it was only required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the petitioner and on a consideration of the materials available on record and in view of the fact that the deceased was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment and torture by the petitioner and it has received corroboration from the complainant, it is sufficient to presume that he has committed the offences and therefore, the plea of discharge is devoid of merit. The impugned order dated 7th January, 2025 at Annexure-1 was followed by framing of charge for the alleged offences and issuance of summons to the witnesses for being examined from the side of opposite party No.1 during trial. Page 7 of 15 11. In Sunil Kumar Jha @ Bittu Jha (supra), the Patna High Court concluded that at the stage of framing of charge even a strong suspicion founded upon material and a presumptive opinion would enable a Court to go for the same and it is to be followed not by a formal order but supported by reasons in absence of any such provision therein, inasmuch as, it must intelligently act upon and exercise due care to reach at a conclusion whether any such charge to be framed keeping in view the fact that such an exercise is not an empty formality. In Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi (supra), the Apex Court considering the material evidence wherein allegation of criminal conspiracy was made held and observed that the words ‘not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused’ occurring in Section 227 Cr.P.C. pustulates exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Court to the facts of the case in order to determine whether it is fit for trial and for the said purpose, the materials are to be assessed for a limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out and the test to determine the same depends on the facts of each case and in that regard, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application but by and large, if two views are equally possible and the Court is satisfied that the evidence produced before it gives rise to a suspicion only as distinguished from a grave suspicion, it shall be well within its power to discharge the accused. The other two decisions in Swamy Prahaladdas and Vedprakash Tarachand Bhaiji (supra) are related to a case under Section 306 IPC and whether one is held responsible for abetment of suicide. 12. As regards, the decision in Kans Raj (supra) relied on and referred to by Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.1, it has been observed therein that while convicting a person for a particular offence, it is the duty of a Court not to give importance to minor discrepancies or omissions. In Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar (supra), the Apex Court held that the evidence of the relatives of the deceased, who are the only witnesses to the cruelty meted out within four months and their evidence is supported by attendant circumstances, the same cannot be discarded because they are interested witnesses and there is some exaggeration. The above decisions have been rendered while considering the appeals filed before the Apex Court against the orders of conviction and not at the stage of framing of charge. 13. At the stage of taking cognizance of the offences, it is made to understand that the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda has considered the initial statement of opposite party No.1 and materials received during enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and not the UD Case record. Similarly, at the stage of framing of charge and while considering discharge of the petitioner on an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. though there is mention about UD Case No.38 of 2011 having been registered but considering the materials on record, it was of the opinion that there is a prima facie case made out since the deceased was allegedly ill-treated till the very end. Page 9 of 15 14. In fact, the family of the deceased filed a complaint by claiming therein that the petitioner and other accused persons are responsible for her death. It has been alleged that the accused persons ill-treated the deceased for non-fulfillment of dowry demand and ultimately, the latter had a homicidal death. On receiving the complaint, the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner as earlier stated. The contention of Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned court below ought to have considered the materials collected in the UD case but merely by referring to the complaint and initial statement of the complainant proceeded to frame charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B & 306, IPC instead of discharging him therefrom. Referring to the case laws cited and discussed herein above, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the learned court below upon considering the materials on record rightly declined to discharge the petitioner and ultimately, framed the charge by order dated 7th January, 2025. The question is, whether, it was for the learned Sessions Court to entertain the plea of the petitioner with reference to the UD case record? According to Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the complainant, such examination of any other record for the purpose of considering discharge or framing of charge is not permissible under law. In response to the above, Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that examination of UD case record is necessary and expedient for the ends of justice, particularly when, there has been no any complaint earlier immediately after death of the deceased alleging ill- treatment and torture, if any, subjected to her. 15. Initially, the complaint was filed for an offence under Section 302, IPC but charge has been farmed under Sections 498-A, 304-B & 306, IPC for the fact that the cognizance order was interfered with by this Court in CRLMC No.2213 of 2012 deleting the offences under Sections 302 & 201, IPC. For the cognizance order to have been modified, the learned court below considered the plea of the petitioner seeking discharge and ultimately, reached at the conclusion that the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306, IPC are prima facie made out against him. The Court is inclined to consider, whether, it was for the learned court below to consider the plea of the petitioner demanding discharge with reference to the UD case record. 16. According to the complainant, the deceased had injuries which he noticed at the time when her dead body was shown to him. It is claimed by Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner that in course of enquiry in the UD case, nothing suspicious was revealed and it was considered to be a case of suicidal hanging simpliciter. It is claimed that there has been no allegation of ill-treatment received from the side of the complainant immediately after the death of the deceased. The inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted. A suicide note left behind is referred to by Mr. Ragada, learned counsel to submit that there has been no mischief committed by the petitioner and hence, he cannot be held responsible for her death but the learned court below did not entertain any such a plea and not even bothered to look into the UD case record to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner while dealing with the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 17. It has been pleaded on record that there can be no second complaint after the UD case is closed but with due respect, the Court is inclined to disagree. When the death takes place under unnatural circumstances, such a case is registered to hold an enquiry into the same. Upon closure of a UD case when a complaint or an FIR is lodged, it is entertained. As such, such an action cannot be treated as a second complaint. It is not a case of any such investigation to be taken up. Only for a limited purpose, an enquiry is held in a UD case and the same is not an investigation in the eyes of law and therefore, to plead that the complaint filed against the petitioner is not cognizable and hence, the impugned order dated 7th January, 2025 is not sustainable in the eye of law is an argument, which is wholly misconceived. 18. Next consideration would be whether it was for the learned court below to examine the UD case record? Even though the evidence received by a court in a complaint is to be examined for the purpose of framing of charge or to consider whether any such charge to be groundless, according to the Court, it is entitled to go through the UD case record and as such, there is no absolute prohibition. It is not that only the materials, which may be made available by the complainant are to be gone through. In the considered view of the Court, an enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. includes collection of any such information necessary for taking cognizance. Of course, at that stage, there is no scope for the defence to submit any such material for consideration of the court taking cognizance of the offences but it may be expanded to ascertain the truth if necessary to consider directing production of the UD case record after a threadbare enquiry made as to where the death has taken place; whether any such case to have been registered; cause of death etc. Even at the stage of framing of charge, such an exercise may have to be undertaken, the purpose being to elicit the truth. In the considered view of the Court, there is no bar in receiving any such material of UD case submitted by the defence at the stage of considering framing of charge since it is a matter of record and outcome of an enquiry held by the police. No doubt, a court is to rest its decision upon the materials made available along with the complaint but in a case of unnatural death, any such report in UD case and connected materials could potentially form the basis to discharge an accused. At best, it can be said that the learned court below at the stage of framing of charge was considering the plea of the defence with reference to the UD case record. At times, UD case record, which includes inquest report and findings of the post-mortem contradicts the allegations in the complaint. Whether there was any such ill-treatment meted out to the deceased while she was in the company of the petitioner is also an aspect gone into at the time of framing of charge and for that, the UD case record may be of some assistance to reach at a conclusion as to if the allegations against the accused is genuine. In the humble view of the Court, there is no absolute bar or any kind of restriction to examine the UD case record at the stage of considering discharge demanded by an accused. Although a discharge is primarily based on the materials of the prosecution, a court can consider any such document and even UD case record, which could ultimately indicate the action initiated to be a futile exercise. In the instant case, the prosecution is based on a complaint. Admittedly, the initial statement of the complainant sets the law into motion but it is the duty of a court to hold an enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. Since such an exercise perhaps was not undertaken, so this Court to had to intervene and modify the order of cognizance while disposing of the CRLMC. Even at that stage, such UD case record or closure report therein may be considered as a part of the material to decide if a prima facie case exists instead of confining everything to the complainant’s evidence, as it is the duty of a Magistrate to elicit the truth of the allegations. Of course, a court is not bound to accept a closure report or any such material collected during enquiry in a UD case. It is for a court to apply its judicial mind to the findings of the enquiry along with the evidence received in a complaint to consider whether there is charge to be framed or it is groundless. 19. Insofar as the UD case record is concerned, the relevant documents prepared during enquiry are in Hindi language even the suicide note of the deceased. It is not revealed as to if there are any mitigating circumstances in the UD case record in favour of the petitioner. Nothing is available on record to show that the petitioner ever submitted the translated version of the documents of the UD case record before the learned court below to satisfy the existence of any such circumstances, which are to exonerate him from the charges levelled. The learned court below cannot be entirely oblivious of the plea of the petitioner based on the UD case record but it is not discernible from anywhere that any such specific evidence was ever brought to its notice at the stage of framing of charge that clearly demolished the claim of the complainant. 20. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and this Court being alive to the settled position of law that there is a limited scope for a court to examine the evidence in detail at the stage of framing of charge or while entertaining a plea for discharge by an accused is inclined to hold that the learned court below should have directed the petitioner to submit any such material, which is to contradict the plea of the complainant and to dismantle it entirely, which was collected during the enquiry in the UD case. The Court is therefore of the view that an opportunity should be provided to the petitioner to apprise the learned court below about any such instances and materials that run contrary to the allegations of ill-treatment and torture and abetment in the death of the deceased for a decision on the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., as such an exercise is necessary in the interest of justice. 21. Accordingly, it is ordered. 22. In the result, the revision stands disposed of with a direction to the learned Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda to freshly deal with the application of discharge filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in connection with C.T. Sessions Case No.113 of 2024 and thereafter to pass necessary order thereon in accordance with law. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 7th January, 2025 rejecting the plea of discharge so also the framing of charge for the alleged offences against the petitioner as at Annexure-1 are hereby set aside. The Court further directs that the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner shall be examined in the light of the discussion and observations made hereinabove followed by an order at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Manoj/Tudu