Allowed

Gopal Mehra S/O Shri Puranchand, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2024CRLR/1998/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the trial court's order directing framing of charges under Sections 307 and 34 IPC. The Court held that the trial court mechanically framed charges without considering the essential ingredients of Section 307 and the intention/knowledge required, passing a cryptic order. The impugned order was set aside with directions to re-adjudicat

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside charges under Section 307 IPC set aside; trial court directed to pass appropriate order after hearing.

Gopal Mehra S/O Shri Puranchand, Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:1169]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1998/2023

¶4

Gopal Mehra S/o Shri Puranchand, Aged About 51 Years, R/o H.no. 2893/6, Kahar Mohalla, Nasirabad, District Ajmer

¶5

Vinay Mehra S/o Shri Hari Shanker, Aged About 25 Years, R/o H.no. 2893, Kahar Mohalla, Nasirabad, District Ajmer.

¶6

Gyan Mehra S/o Shri Puranchand, Aged About 57 Years, R/o H.no. 2893, Kahar Mohalla, Nasirabad, District Ajmer. ----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

Akram Kureshi S/o Ajimula, R/o Badi Mandi, Nasirabad, District Ajmer.

¶10

Farhan S/o Akram, R/o H.no. 3128, Palsaniya Road, Nasirabad City, District Ajmer. (Injured)

¶11

Irfan S/o Akram, R/o H.no. 3128, Palsaniya Road, Nasirabad City, District Ajmer. (Injured)

¶12

Aadil S/o Akram, R/o H.no. 3128, Palsaniya Road, Nasirabad City, District Ajmer. (Injured)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena - PP

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶16

Order

¶17

04/01/2024

¶18

In the instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nasirabad, Ajmer, whereby, learned trial

[2024:RJ-JP:1169]

[CRLR-1998/2023]

(2 of 3)

court directed to frame charges against the petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 307 and 34 I.P.C.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial court has not considered the nature of injuries caused to the victim and circumstances to find out whether the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out. The order of learned trial court framing charges under above Sections is without application of mind ignoring the essential ingredients required to be considered for framing the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.

¶24

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defends the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. 4. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charges, the learned trial court is expected to go through the entire material available on record and to see whether the ingredients of offences are available for framing of the charge. Though, it is correct that minute scrutiny of the offences and truthfulness of the witnesses cannot be examined at the stage of framing of charge, however, Court has to consider material only with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence or not.

¶25

In the impugned order, the learned trial court has mechanically directed to frame the charges under Section 307 I.P.C. against the present petitioners. The trial court has not considered the essential ingredients engrafted and enshrined under Section 307 I.P.C.

¶26

Under Section 307 I.P.C. whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and other such circumstances that, if he

[2024:RJ-JP:1169]

[CRLR-1998/2023]

(3 of 3)

by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶31

Though, it is correct that intention or knowledge as the case cannot be determined by merely upon nature of the injury. There was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend upon the facts of the each case. It is expected from the learned trial court to pass a reasoned order. The learned trial court has passed a very cryptic order without assigning cogent reasons for framing of charges under Section 307 I.P.C.

¶32

In view of the above, the present criminal revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 is set aside with the direction to the learned trial court to pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court forthwith.

¶33

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶34

ASHWINI KUMAR CHOUHAN /680

Gopal Mehra S/O Shri Puranchand, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Mehra S/O Shri Puranchand, 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

Ajay Kumar Gupta S/O Kailash Chand Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagvir Singh @ Kalu Son of Ummed Singh @ Uday Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal Jain S/O Shri Magan Lal Jain Vs M/S Choudhari Transport Company

Bhagwati Prasad Meena S/O Shri Nanakram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar Son of Shri Purna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Chand Yogi S/O Shri Choth Mal Yogi Vs State of Rajasthan