p. 1 CGHC010246712021 2026:CGHC:35947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 650 of 2021 1 - Lalit Kumar Bharti S/o Shri Chinta Ram Bharti, Aged About 31 Years. 2 - Chinta Ram Bharti, S/o Shri Halal Khor, Aged About 55 Years. 3 - Smt. Heman Bai W/o Chinta Ram Bharti, Aged About 52 Years. All the above are R/o Village Badbhum, P.S. Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants (s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 13/08 /2026 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 27/2021, whereby charges have been framed against the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 27.10.2016, on the basis of information furnished by applicant No.1-Lalit Kumar Bharti, a merg intimation was registered regarding the death of his wife, namely, Omeshwari Bharti. It was stated that the marriage between applicant ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.14 16:36:00 +0530 p. 2 No.1 and the deceased had been solemnized according to the customary rites and rituals about two and a half years prior to the incident. On 26.10.2016, after preparing breakfast in the morning, applicant No.1 went to school and at about 10:00 a.m., after cooking food, while the deceased was extinguishing the fire, she suffered an epileptic seizure, as a result of which her clothes caught fire and she sustained burn injuries on her left thigh. The fire was extinguished and she was taken to a doctor in the village for treatment and thereafter, in the afternoon, she again suffered an epileptic attack, became unconscious and froth started coming out of her nose and mouth. At about 6:00 p.m., she was taken to Dongargaon Hospital in a 108 Ambulance, where the attending doctor declared her dead. Subsequently, the parents and other family members of the deceased made allegations regarding harassment and cruelty meted out to her in her matrimonial home. On the basis of the material collected during merg intimation, an FIR was lodged on 15.12.2016 at Police Station- Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon and, after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 of the IPC. The learned trial Court, upon consideration of the material available on record, framed the aforesaid charges against the applicants vide order dated 26.03.2021. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid framing of charges, the applicants have preferred this criminal revision before this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and, during an epileptic seizure, felt in stove p. 3 and sustained 30% burn injuries and the nature of the burn injuries was not sufficient in ordinary course to cause death, therefore, the allegation of dowry death is wholly unfounded. He would further submit that the applicants themselves took the deceased to a local doctor for treatment, which demonstrates that she was not subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with any demand for dowry immediately prior to her death. He would further submit that the family members of the deceased had themselves admitted that she was suffering from epilepsy and that, after sustaining the burn injury, she suffered two further epileptic attacks, became unconscious and ultimately died while being taken to the hospital. Thus, the death was in the ordinary course and not under any suspicious circumstances. He would further submit that there was considerable delay in lodging the complaint and submitting the charge-sheet and that such delay creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution case and would pray for quashing of the charges framed against the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel apposing the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the deceased had taken place about two and a half years prior to her death and that the deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. He would further submit that whether the death was accidental, natural or otherwise is a matter which can be determined only after recording of evidence. He would further submit that that the material collected during investigation discloses allegations of cruelty and harassment against the applicants, therefore, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants and would pray for dismissal of the revision petition. Page 4 of 7 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 6. From material collected by the prosecution, it is not indispute that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the deceased had taken place approximately two and a half years before her death and she died in her matrimonial home in circumstances involving burn injuries and whether the burn injuries were sufficient to cause death is a matter which required appreciation of evidence. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and that the applicants had taken her for treatment may constitute a defence during trial, however, at the stage of framing of charge, this Court cannot conclusively accept the defence version and discard the prosecution material. 7. So far as the contention regarding delay in lodging the complaint or completion of investigation is concerned, the same also does not furnish a sufficient ground for quashing the charges at this stage. The effect of delay, the circumstances in which the allegations came to be made and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses are matters which can appropriately be considered by the trial Court after the evidence is led. 8. The scope of interference at the stage of framing of charge is well settled and at this stage, the Court is required to examine whether the material placed by the prosecution, if accepted at its face value, discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to conduct a roving or meticulous examination of the evidence or to determine whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed in p. 5 establishing the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the material collected during investigation cannot be said to be so deficient or inherently improbable as to warrant interference with the order framing charges. The rival submissions regarding the cause of death and the alleged cruelty are matters requiring appreciation of evidence and cannot appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of revisional jurisdiction at this preliminary stage. 9. The observation made by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs is fortified by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Manendra Prasad Tiwari Vs. Amit Kumar Tiwari & another [(2022) 20 SCC 757] wherein it has been held in paragraphs 23, 24 & 25 as under:- “23. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, 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. [see State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi, (2000) 8 SCC 239]. 24. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could p. 6 prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. 25. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding.” 10. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Orissa Vs. Pratima Behera [AIR 2025 SC 218] has held in paragraphs 10, 11 & 12 as under:- “10. We may hasten to state at this juncture that though at the stage of framing of issue what is to be seen is only whether there is a prima facie case to make the accused to stand the trial at the trial, certainly, the presumption of innocence should be in favour of the accused. 11. Taking note of the fact that in the case on hand, the High Court set aside the charge framed against the respondent while exercising the revisional power, it is relevant to refer to the decision in Minakshi Bala v. Criminal Appeal No.3175 of 2024 Sudhir Kumar & Ors4. This Court on the question of quashing of charge by the High Court made the following pertinent observations: - “7…To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence. 8. Apart from the infirmity in the approach of the High Court in dealing with the matter which we have already noticed, we further find that instead of adverting to and confining its attention to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC the High Court has (1994) 4 SCC 142; 1994 INSC p. 7 201 Criminal Appeal No.3175 of 2024 dealt with the rival contentions of the parties raised through their respective affidavits at length and on a threadbare discussion thereof passed the impugned order. The course so adopted cannot be supported; firstly, because finding regarding commission of an offence cannot be recorded on the basis of affidavit evidence and secondly, because at the stage of framing of charge the Court cannot usurp the functions of a Trial Court to delve into and decide upon the respective merits of the case.” (underline supplied) 12. In short, while reiterating the position that in a prosecution, presumption of innocence should be in favour of the accused, it has to be said that at the stage of framing charge, even a very strong suspicion, of course, founded upon materials and presumptive opinion would enable the Court to frame charge against an accused.” 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as aforestated, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No.27/2021. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The order framing charges against the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 of the IPC is hereby affirmed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 13. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined solely to the consideration of the present revision against the order framing charge and shall not prejudice the applicants or the prosecution during the trial. The learned trial Court shall decide the case strictly on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun