Dismissed

Hemant Kumar Rajput v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Nov 2017CRR/465/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the application for condonation of delay. The court dismissed the revision challenging the order framing charges for abduction, rape, and illegal detention, holding that prima facie evidence existed and no illegality was shown in the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed at the motion stage; application for condonation of delay allowed; interim application for stay dismissed.

Hemant Kumar Rajput Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

CRR No. 465 of 2017

¶3

Hemant Kumar Rajput S/o Firtu Ram Rajput Aged About 35 Years R/o Mahamaya Chowk, Ghutheli, Police Station- Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶4

---- Revisioner Versus

¶5

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationGariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Respondent

¶7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Revisioner ` : Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate. For non-revisioner/State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate.

¶8

(SB: Honorable Mr. Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma) Order on Board

¶9

15-11-2017

¶10

Heard on 1 of 2017, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant revision.

¶11

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the revision is condoned.

¶12

Also heard on admission.

¶13

This revision is preferred against the order dated 22-9-2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2016 wherein the said court framed charge against the revisioner under Section 120-B of the IPC and framed charge against other co-accused Ved Prakash Kaushal under Sections 366, 376 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012.

¶14

Learned counsel for the revisioner submits that there is no evidence to proceed against the present revisioner and, therefore, the order framing the charge be set aside.

¶15

Written complaint lodged by the prosecutrix and the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of prosecutrix, Bhog Singh Rajput, Jyoti Rajput and Kamesh Rajput, prima facie, goes to show that the present revisioner and other coaccused Ved Prakash Kaushal caused an illegal act of abducting the prosecutrix with intent that she may be compelled to marry with Jay Prakash and they wanted to gain some money and land from the father of the said prosecutrix. Other accused is also charged for offence under Section 376 (2) and 120-B of the IPC.

¶16

While framing charge, the trial Court is not holding any enquiry as to whether the allegation in the first information report is likely to be established by the evidence or not. If the material placed before the court is sufficient for strong suspicion against the person brought before the court, that can frame charge. At this stage, guilt of the person is not decided and it is only seen that there is ground to proceed against such person and unless it is groundless, charges can be framed.

¶17

It appears from the papers submitted on memorandum of revision that there is prima facie evidence available against the present revisioner for framing of charge under Section 120-B of the IPC. Appreciation of evidence is not permissible at this stage. The court will not go into the merits of the allegations and this Court is having limited jurisdiction to watch whether any irregularly or illegality is committed by the said Court while framing the charge. As no irregularity or illegality is shown

¶18

and there is material to proceed with the case, the revision is without substance.

¶19

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed at motion stage itself. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2017, which is an application for grant of stay also stand dismissed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

(Ram Prasanna Sharma) Judge

¶22

Raju

Hemant Kumar Rajput v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Kumar Rajput v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Majithia Vs Smt. Charusheela

Ghanaram Mahilane Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ishwar Nage Vs Smt. Anita Nage

Gautam Prasad and Ors. Vs the State of C.G.

Bhagat Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nagendra Wadher Vs State of Chhattisgarh