Dismissed

State of Hp v. Rishi Bhardwaj

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Sept 2024CR.R/121/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by the State against an order rejecting a request to commit a case to the Sessions Court. The court held that the trial court correctly determined the offence was triable by a Magistrate and found no patent defect to warrant revisonal interference.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, and the order passed by the learned Trial Court was upheld.

State of Hp Vs Rishi Bhardwaj — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7960 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 121 of 2021 Reserved on: 06.08.2024 Date of Decision: 05.09.2024

¶4

State of H.P. ...Petitioner Versus Rishi Bhardwaj ...Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. : For the Respondent Mr. Lakshay Parihar, Advocate.

¶8

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶9

The present revision is directed against the order dated 09.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur (learned Trial Court) vide which, the application filed by the prosecution under Section 323 of Cr.P.C. was ordered to be dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

¶10

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the victim lodged an FIR in the Police Station, Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶11

¶12

¶13

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7960 )

¶14

Indora stating that the accused threatened him to give false evidence in a case pending before Learned Sessions Court, Una, District Una. The police registered the FIR and filed the charge sheet before the learned Additional CJM (learned Trial Court). Learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 195A, 504, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶15

The State filed an application under Section 323 of Cr.P.C. stating that the main offence was triable by the Court of Sessions and that the matter be committed to the learned Sessions Judge.

¶16

The learned Trial Court held that the offence punishable under Section 195A of IPC is triable by the Court by which the offence of giving false evidence is triable. The offence of giving false evidence is punishable under Sections 193, 194 and 195 of IPC. The offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC is triable by the Magistrate of the First Class whereas the offences punishable under Sections 194 and 195 are triable by the Court of Sessions. However, they apply for giving false evidence with an intent to cause any person to be convicted of an offence punishable with capital

¶17

¶18

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7960 )

¶19

punishment, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more. In the present case, the FIR in the main case was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. These offences are punishable with imprisonment for five years. Hence, the matter was triable by the Magistrate and not by the Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

¶20

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present revision has been filed asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application. The FIR was registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 195A of IPC for threatening the informant in a case triable by learned Sessions Court, Una. The threat was advanced to give false evidence in case FIR No. 289 of 2015 under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. These offences are triable by the Court of Sessions and the learned Trial Court erred in not committing the case to the learned Sessions Judge; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶21

¶22

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7960 )

¶23

I have heard Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner and Mr. Lakshay Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

¶24

Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner/State submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application. The accused had threatened the informant in a case triable by the Court of Sessions and the case should have been committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Magistrate erred in holding that the matter was triable by a Magistrate. Hence, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶25

Mr. Lakshay Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent/accused supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted that no interference is required with the same.

¶26

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶27

Schedule-I of the Cr.P.C. provides the list of offences and the Court by which they are triable. Section 195A of IPC is shown to be triable by the Court by which the offence of giving false

¶28

¶29

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7960 )

¶30

evidence is triable. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the offence under Section 195A is to be tried by the Court where the main case is pending, in which the threat was advanced. The pendency of the main case has nothing to do with the trial of the offence punishable under Section 195A and such a trial is governed by the entry recorded in the First Schedule.

¶31

The offence of giving false evidence has been defined under Section 191 of IPC. This office is punishable under Section 193 to Section 195 of IPC. The offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC is triable by the Magistrate of the First Class. Section 194 of IPC deals with the giving or fabricating of false evidence with intent to procure a conviction of capital offence which is triable by the Court of Sessions. Section 195 deals with giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offences punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or upwards and it is triable by the Court of Sessions.

¶32

Therefore, the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. shows that the offence of giving false evidence is triable by the Court of the Magistrate if the false evidence is given or evidence is fabricated in an offence punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment. If

¶33

¶34

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7960 )

¶35

the offence is punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more, life imprisonment or capital punishment, an offence of giving false evidence in such an offence is triable by the Court of Sessions. It is undisputed that the main case was filed for the commission of offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment, which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which is punishable with five years of imprisonment. Hence, the offence of giving false evidence in the present case would be covered under Section 193 of IPC and will be triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate.

¶36

Thus, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view and there is no error in the same. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh , (2022) 8 SCC 204: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that the revisional court is not appellate Court and it can only rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was observed on page 207

¶37

“10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record.

¶38

7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7960 )

¶39

The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like to the appellate court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short “CrPC”) vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual cases. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.

¶40

In the present case, there is no patent defect or error of

¶41

jurisdiction or the law in the order passed by the learned Trial Court; hence, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶42

The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

¶43

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶44

5^th September, 2024 (saurav pathania )

State of Hp v. Rishi Bhardwaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Rishi Bhardwaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Anand Vs State

B.R. Agrotech Ltd. Vs N.G. Polymers and Anr.

Jagmohan and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Umesh Kumar Vs Veena Kumari

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Hp

Aakash Yadav Vs State of Hp