In Cr. Revision No. 143 of 2017, this Court quashed the lower court's charge-framing order dated 02.05.2017, finding the court failed to assess if a prima facie case existed. The matter was remanded for rehearing and charge framing only if reasons exist.
Impugned order dated 02.05.2017 set aside; case remanded to lower court for rehearing before framing charge.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 143 of 2017 Decided on: 26.07.2017
______________________________________________________ Raj Kumar …..Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent.
______________________________________________________ Coram_
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting?
| ______________________ For the petitioner: |
________________________________ Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Gaurav Gautam, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For the respondent: | Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG, with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. |
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral)
Today, when the case was taken up, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Court below while framing the charge did not apply its mind at all. He has taken this Court to impugned order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the learned Court below,
which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
“02.05.2017: Present: Sh. Sandeep Attri, P.P. for the State. Accused (on bail) with counsel Sh. R.D. Poswal, Advocate.
Heard. Charge conceded, thus, framed under Sections 376, 201, 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989, to which the accused pleads not guilty and claims trial. Now the PWs as per the prosecution list be summoned as follows: Sr. No. 1 to 3 & 23 for 19.06.2017, Sr. No. 4 to 7 for 20.06.2017 and Sr. No. 8 to 13 for 21.06.2017.”
Learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that after
passing of impugned order by the learned Court below, the accused did not plead guilty and he stated that he has understood the charge. Meaning thereby, the charge was framed by the learned Court below after due application of mind.
dated 02.05.2017, passed by the learned Court below, finds
3
that the learned Court below while passing the impugned order did not satisfy itself that whether prima facie any case is made out against the accused or not. A bare perusal of the impugned order could not clearly demonstrate that the
charge conceded by whom and under what circumstances. Thus, in fact, the charge is not conceded and this is amply clear from the later part of the impugned order, wherein it is recorded that the accused pleads not guilty and claims trial. Therefore, under these circumstances, the order, dated 02.05.2017, passed by the learned Court below seems to be unsustainable in the eyes of law and this Court finds that the same is required to be set aside with a further direction to the learned Court below to rehear the parties before framing the charge and in case after hearing the parties, the learned Court below comes to the conclusion that prima facie case is made out against the accused, then only the charge is to be framed.
4
below may frame the charge for the offences, if the learned Court below comes to the conclusion that there are reasons
to frame the charge. The parties are also directed to appear before the learned Court below on 19th August, 2017, at 10 a.m. The records of this case be sent to the learned Court below forthwith so as to reach well within the time.
pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge
26th June, 2017
(virender)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court correctly framed the charge without establishing a prima facie case.
Whether the lower court satisfied itself that a prima facie case was made out against the accused.
Whether the impugned order framing the charge without recording guilty plea by the accused is unsustainable.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Raj Kumar
State of Himachal Pradesh
Chander Bhusan Barowalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
