IO's Presence Not Required At Framing Of Charge Stage: Allahabad HC; Adverse Remarks Against Judicial Officer Expunged

A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania also cautioned the judicial officer for making adverse remarks against a previous judicial officer who had handled the matter and ordered those remarks to be expunged.

“It is well settled principle/proposition of law that a coordinate Bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercise or judgment rendered by the another coordinate Bench of the same strength and in this view of the matter the observations made in the impugned order against earlier Presiding Officer are hereby expunged and the Presiding Officer who has passed the impugned order is cautioned in this regard,” the single judge remarked.Top of Form

Essentially, the accused applicant (Shashi Kant Bajpai) booked under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 DP Act, had moved the HC challenging an order passed by the trial court wherein his application to summon the IO and present new evidence during the framing of charges stage, was rejected.

Importantly, in its application before the trial court, the applicant-accused had referred to earlier four orders of the Sessions Court (by a previous Presiding Officer), wherein the IO was summoned before the Court to answer the alleged discrepancies related to the F.S.L. report, supplementary chargesheet etc.

In the impugned order passed on December 12, 2024, dismissing the application filed by the accused applicant, the trial court made some adverse remarks against the earlier presiding officer for summoning the IO in the case.

Challenging this very order, the applicant-accused moved the HC, arguing that the presence of IO in view of the earlier Presiding Officer was necessary for framing of charges and as such, the trial court committed an error of law in rejecting the application.

It was also contended that the suicide note, CCTV footage and other documents are also relevant for framing of charge and that the suicide note would be appropriate for coming to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 304-B IPC would be attracted or under Section 306 IPC would be attracted.

The High Court, however, upheld the trial court's order not to summon the IO as it opined that the presence of IO is not required at the stage of framing the charge.

“The Police Officer/ I.O. was called upon only to explain the latches in the investigation and also for the reason that the FSL Report could not be filed before the trial court, which is apparent from the letter(s) dated 03.03.2020 and 12.03.2020 of the Presiding Officer. In this view of the matter, the trial court, vide order impugned, has not committed any error of law in not summoning the I.O.,” the single judge observed.

Furthermore, the HC noted that from the evidence available at this stage of the proceedings before the trial court, it is apparent that (a) the deceased was in the premises of the applicant, (b) the death was within seven years from the date of marriage, i.e. on 23.02.20214 and (c) the death was unnatural.

Thus, the Court concluded that the presumption would be against the applicant and based upon the material available on record, the charges under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC can be framed.

The Court, however, clarified that based upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, including the FSL report, if the trial court finds that the offence under Section 304-B IPC is not made out, then the trial court would certainly either acquit the applicant or punish the applicant for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

Given these observations, the Court dismissed the applicant's plea.

Case title - Shashi Kant Bajpai vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Home Secy. Lko. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 56

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 56

Click Here To Read/Download order