The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed to challenge the framing of charges under IPC Sections 323, 504, and 506. The court held that challenge to charge framing is permitted only to correct jurisdiction errors, finding no such error here.
The criminal revision stands dismissed summarily.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2000 of 2019
Revisionist :- Smt. Chanda Devi And 2 Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sarvesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A., for the State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated passed by A.C.M.M.-1st, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 3152 of 2012 (Anjana Yadav Vs. Rajiv Gaur), Police Station Kohna, District Kanpur Nagar whereby charge under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC has been framed against revisionists/accused.
Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that opposite party No. 2 (Anjana Yadav)/complainant has levelled false allegation of marriage and rape against Rajiv Gaur. Opposite party No. 2 (Anjana Yadav) has lodged this complaint maliciously with false allegation only to harass the revisionists. Opposite party No. 2 (Anjana Yadav) has sustained no injury. From allegation made in the complaint, offence under Section 506 IPC is not made out.
Learned A.G.A., appearing for the State contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Burueau of Investigation reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 310 has observed as follows:-
". .............38. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter ."
Charge may be framed even on the basis of suspicion. Accordingly, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the court below. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below.
In result, this criminal revision, stands dismissed , summarily.
Order Date :- 17.5.2019 Jaswant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether framing of charge constitutes an interlocutory order barring High Court jurisdiction under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether there was patent illegality in the order passing the charge framing against the revisionists.
Whether the petitioners can show that no offence is made out even on suspicion to quash the charge.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Burueau of InvestigationReferred¶9
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Burueau of Investigation reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 310 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Chanda Devi
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
