Under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, this judgment addresses a revision petition against the framing of charges. Upholding the trial court's order as well-reasoned and not resulting in abuse of process, the High Court rejected the plea to quаш the charges.
The Criminal Revision Petition and the Stay Petition were rejected and disposed of respectively.
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.
(1 of 5)
[2023:RJ-JD:45021]
[CRLR-1397/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1397/2022
Manfool S/o Pratap Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Moriya Ps Lohawat Dist. Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divakar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/12/2023
The present Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Sessions Case No. 21/2022 (CIS no. 100/2021) whereby the learned trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 148, 364 in alternative 364/149, 302 in alternative 302/149 and 120-B of the IPC.
[2023:RJ-JD:45021]
[CRLR-1397/2022]
(2 of 5)
the FIR and there is no explanation for the said delay. It is further submitted that the complainant has produced eye witnesses, namely Sohan Ram and Shyamlal and both the eye witnesses have not named the petitioner in their statements. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he was also not present at the place of incident. There was no premeeting of minds between the accused persons. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged criminal conspiracy. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Criminal Revision Petition may be allowed and the impugned order framing charges against the petitioner for the offences aforesaid may be quashed and set aside.
[2023:RJ-JD:45021]
[CRLR-1397/2022]
(3 of 5)
“….
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
… 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
(4 of 5)
[2023:RJ-JD:45021]
[CRLR-1397/2022]
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.”
“17. This is a case where the charges have been framed and the Accused are awaiting trial. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that the investigation and the follow-up steps are not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous (except to the extent we propose to mention before concluding our judgment) that allowing the trial to progress might cause a miscarriage of justice. This is also not an appropriate stage to delve deep into the records. It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, conviction or acquittal of the Accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the Accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. ...”
[2023:RJ-JD:45021]
[CRLR-1397/2022]
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
1-CPG/Dinesh/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court could interfere with the order framing charges against the petitioner despite allegations of delay in FIR and lack of naming in eye-witness statements.
Whether the material on record prima facie established the petitioner's involvement in the offences to justify framing of charges under IPC.
Whether allowing the trial to proceed would cause a miscarriage of justice given the absence of pre-meeting of minds between accused persons.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh ChandraReferred¶27
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra MANU/SC/0746/2012
Supriya Jain v. State of HaryanaReferred¶36
Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0730/2023
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manfool S/o Pratap Ram
State Of Rajasthan
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
