Allowed

Pawan Soni S/O Rajveer Soni v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2024CRLR/1140/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition, setting aside the impugned order framing charges under Sections 412 and 201 IPC. The court held the lower court ignored facts showing stolen property was recovered from a co-accused and lacked substantive evidence against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order framed for the petitioner is set aside; direction to trial court to pass appropriate order after giving hearing.

Pawan Soni S/O Rajveer Soni Vs State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:1764]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1140/2023

¶4

Pawan Soni S/o Rajveer Soni, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Lala Wali Gali, Deeg District Bharatpur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p 2. Rambharosi S/o Latoor, R/o Panchmukhi Mohalla, Laxmangarh, District Alwar

¶8

	----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. S.L. Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Suresh Kumar - PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶10

Order

¶11

10/01/2024

¶12

This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh (Alwar), whereby, learned court below directed to frame charges under Sections 412 and 201 I.P.C. against the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from the disclosure statement of co-accused Hori Lal there is no other substantive evidence indicating that accused petitioner was involved in receiving the stolen property. He further contends that as per the FIR golden chain (Mangalsutra) was stolen from the complainant's house and the said golden chain (Mangalsutra) was recovered on the instance of information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by co-accused Horilal. Apart from the said

[2024:RJ-JP:1764]

[CRLR-1140/2023]

(2 of 4)

golden chain (Mangalsutra) no other article was stolen. He further submits that the learned court below did not consider the factual aspect that recovery of golden chain (Mangalsutra) was effected from co-accused Horilal and there was no evidence that accusedpetitioner dishonestly received the stolen property from the other co-accused, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the accused-petitoner may be discharged under Sections 412 and 201 I.P.C.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defends the impugned order passed by the learned court below. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is settled principle that if the accused is able to demonstrate from the available material, at the stage of framing charge, which might drastically effect the very sustainability of the case, then such material cannot be ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused for making submission as envisaged under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to assess the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. It is also settled principles of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court must proceed on an assumption that the material, which has been brought on record by the prosecution, is true and evaluate the said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value disclose the existence of necessary ingredients of the offence alleged.

¶19

The learned court below while directing to frame the charges under Sections 412 and 201 I.P.C. has totally ignored the factual

[2024:RJ-JP:1764]

[CRLR-1140/2023]

(3 of 4)

aspect that the stolen golden chain (Mangalsutra) was recovered from the instance of co-accused Horilal pursuant to the information rendered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is also evident that no recovery of golden chain (Mangalsutra) was effected from the present petitioner. It is also settled principles of law that the information furnished by co-accused Horilal, which merely discloses the name of other co-accused, cannot be read and taken into consideration for the purpose of framing charges until there is any substantive evidence available on record regarding involvement of the accused.

¶24

The learned trial court in the impugned order did not assign any cogent reason for framing of charges under Section 412 and 201 I.P.C. against the present petitioner. The learned trial court in para 4 of the impugned order recorded the finding that there is evidence against the present petitioner that he received the stolen property from the other co-accused and melted the gold to change its form.

¶25

The opinion of the learned trial court referred as above is not substantiated by any documentary or supportive evidence. As already stated, the stolen property i.e. golden chain (Mangalsutra) was recovered from co-accused Horilal, therefore, the opinion of the learned trial court that the accused-petitioner melted the gold and change its form is not correct. The learned trial court has not gone through the entire material available on record while framing the charges under Sections 412 and 201 I.P.C. against the present petitioner.

¶26

In view of the above, the present criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated

[2024:RJ-JP:1764]

[CRLR-1140/2023]

(4 of 4)

06.06.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh (Alwar) is set aside with the direction to the learned trial court to pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶31

A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court forthwith.

¶32

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶33

62-ASHWINI KUMAR CHOUHAN /680

Pawan Soni S/O Rajveer Soni v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Soni S/O Rajveer Soni v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbal S/O Shri Dhan Ji Vs State of Rajasthan

Narottam Son of Shrilal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Budhram @ Budharam S/O Jawan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju S/O Jaspal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Singh S/O Ganesh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishankumar Vs State