High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charges under Section 212 IPC. The court held that the trial court acted without illegality or perversity and no interference was called for.
Criminal revision petition and stay petition dismissed.
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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 753/2019
Sandeep Kumar Kansaniya S/o Anup Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Joghpurya , P.s. Raniya , Tehsil Raniya , Sirsa , Distt. Sirsa , Haryana . At Present R/o Ehc No 770, Police Line Sirsa , Distt. Sirsa , Haryana
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
17/01/2020
The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the appellant under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.23/2018 (50/18) (CIS No.65/18) whereby the learned trial court ordered to frame the charges against the petitioner for offence under Section 212 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a bare perusal of the statement of Sanjay Kumar, Satpal Futela & Vimla recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. goes to show that they did not saw the petitioner at the time of offence of harbouring of offender Ankit Bhadu, therefore the statement of Sanjay, Kumar, Satpal Futela & Vimla is hearsay which is not admissible. In such circumstances framing of charge under Section 212 of IPC is
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-753/2019]
improper. Therefore, the order of trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order impugned and submitted that the order of framing charge passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity. Hence, no interference is called for from this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materiel available on record.
I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned order as also the material available on record. The learned trial Court has considered the evidence as well as record of the case and rightly framed the charges against the petitioner. Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court and no interference is called from this Court.
Hence, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner is
hereby dismissed.
Stay petition is also dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
60-Ishan/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the framing of charges under Section 212 IPC for harbouring is illegal or perverse given inconsistencies in the FIRO statements of witnesses.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Additional Sessions Judge framing charges against the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sandeep Kumar Kansaniya
State Of Rajasthan
Dharmpal
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
