This High Court dismissed petitions challenging the order framing charges under IPC and POCSO Act, holding that the issue of defence and retaliation cannot be decided at the charge framing stage, and the matter should await trial.
Petitions dismissed; orders dated 9.10.2019 upholding framing of charges remain effective.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Connected With
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-6913/2019]
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
15/01/2020
The petitioners have assailed the order dated 9.10.2019 whereby charges were framed against the petitioners u/s 323, 341, 147, 454, 354, 427 read with section 149 IPC and u/s 5G/6 of POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR against the petitioners is in retaliation of the earlier FIR which the petitioners had lodged against the complainant. Learned counsel submits that police had not found any case u/s 5G/6 of POCSO Act and charge sheet was filed only u/s 147, 149, 341, 323 and 427 IPC whereafter the complainant filed a complaint against the final report and the matter was taken up by the POCSO Court and cognizance was taken against the petitioners. It is submitted that the medical conducted of the child, do not make out a case u/s 5G/6 of POCSO Act and the order of framing of charge is bad-inlaw. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offences u/s 454 and 354 IPC are also not made out against them.
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-6913/2019]
From the facts which have come on record, in investigation the medical report of the child does not show that any internal or external injuries have been caused to him. In the circumstances, there was no occasion of framing of charges against the petitioners.
Learned counsel submits that once allegation u/s 354(b) is not found to be made out, the court ought to have looked into the aspect as to how section 354 IPC simplicitor can be said to be made out.
I have considered the submissions and find that the learned court has before passing order impugned dated 9.10.2019 examined the statements which were recorded during investigation and has directed to frame the charges u/s 323, 341, 147, 454, 354, 427 read with section 149 IPC and section 5G/6 of POCSO Act. At this stage, defence of the petitioners could not have been looked into and therefore learned trial court has rightly ignored the submissions relating to the defence part at this stage and directed framing of charge.
The petitioners would be always free to take up their defence and the argument regarding the FIR having been lodged to counter earlier FIR lodged by the petitioners. However, that aspect cannot be a sufficient ground to quash the criminal proceedings and discharge the petitioners at this stage.
Both the misc. petitions are therefore misconceived and accordingly dismissed.
A copy of this order be placed in the connected file.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Brijesh 64
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order framing charges under the POCSO Act and IPC is liable to be set aside at this stage of the trial
Whether the defence of retaliation is a sufficient ground to quash criminal proceedings and discharge the petitioners
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Narendra S/o Kapoor Chand
Kamal S/o Kapoor Chand
Siddarth S/o Narendra
Rajat S/o Kamal
Subham S/o Kamal
Chandra Prakash Alias Shashi S/o Paras Chand
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
