Absence of specific overt acts against married sisters-in-law precludes framing of charges for non-bailable session-triable offences.

The petitioners, married sisters-in-law of the informant, challenged an order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the A.J.C.-XV-cum-F.T.C. (C.A.W.), Ranchi, which rejected their discharge application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

The informant alleged that following her marriage in 2014, she was subjected to dowry demands (specifically a "dumper"), mental torture, and physical assault by her husband and in-laws.

A charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners under Sections 498A and 313/34 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners contended that they were married long before the informant, resided in different cities (Dhanbad and Greater Noida), and held professional jobs, making the allegations against them general and omnibus in nature.

The court applied Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates the discharge of an accused if the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding.

It further relied on Section 228 of the Cr.P.C., which requires the Judge to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming the accused has committed an offence—specifically one triable by the Court of Session.

The court emphasized the legal principle that while a "mini-trial" is not required at the stage of framing charges, the Judge must pass a reasoned order based on a subjective satisfaction that the materials collected during investigation establish a prima facie case.

The High Court observed that the informant’s written report primarily targeted her husband and mother-in-law.

Regarding the petitioners (the sisters-in-law), only general allegations were made. Crucially, the High Court noted that the Trial Court's own order admitted that the informant had not specifically alleged any act of abortion (Section 313 IPC) against these petitioners.

The High Court reasoned that since Section 313 IPC was the only charge making the case triable by a Court of Session, and there was "no whisper" of evidence for this against the petitioners, the Trial Court should have either discharged them or remitted the case to a Magistrate under Section 228(1)(a) for the lesser charge of Section 498A.

The Court concluded that the Trial Court failed to record legally sustainable reasons for proceeding with the Sessions trial against the petitioners.

The Revision was allowed, and the order dated 18.05.2022 was set aside. The Trial Court was directed to rehear the parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, considering whether the materials actually supported a prima facie case for a Sessions-triable offence against the petitioners.