Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 123 (RAJ)

Samander v. State of Rajasthan

2006-01-10

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner, who is complainant in this criminal case, has challenged the order dated 11.02.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge ( Fast Track), No. 5, Bharatpur, Camp Deeg whereby while framing the charges for offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 307/149 and 323, IPC, learned Additional Sessions Judge has not framed the charge for offence under Section 452, IPC. Hence, this petition before us. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had lodged a FIR against the accused respondents and had clearly stated that armed with dangerous weapons, the accused respondents had entered into his house and had caused injuries to him. After the investigation, despite the existence of the site plan, but for the reason best known to the police, police did not submit the charge for offence under Section 452, IPC. Therefore, at the time of framing of the charges, the complainant argued before the learned Court below that according to the complainant himself and according to the other witnesses, the accused had entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted the complainant. Therefore, the charge for the offence under Section 452, IPC is made out. But nonetheless, vide impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge did not frame the charge for offence under Section 452, IPC. 3. Mr. Dileep Singh Jadoun, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that not only the complainant and the other witnesses have stated about the accused entering into the house, but the site plan also clearly shows that the incident took place inside the house. Therefore, prima facie offence under Section 452, IPC is clearly made out. Despite oral and documentary evidence, which is readily available in the challan papers, learned Additional Sessions Judge has not framed the offence under Section 452, IPC. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Sharma for Mr. Biri Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 to 11, has argued that there is a cross-case between both the parties and the accused persons are also facing a trial for offence under Section 307, IPC. After a thorough investigation, the police did not find any case for offence under Section 452, IPC. Therefore, the police did not file the challan for the said offence. He has, therefore, supported the impugned order. Likewise learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Arun Sharma, has also supported the impugned order. 5. After a thorough investigation, the police did not find any case for offence under Section 452, IPC. Therefore, the police did not file the challan for the said offence. He has, therefore, supported the impugned order. Likewise learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Arun Sharma, has also supported the impugned order. 5. The duty of a criminal Court is not only to protect an innocent person, but also to punish the guilty. Before the guilt can be proved by the prosecution, it is essential that proper charges be framed against the alleged offender. The framing of a proper charge is not only in the interest of the complainant, but is also in the interest of the accused. In case, a proper charge is not framed, then grave injustice is done to the complainant. But simultaneously, the accused is prevented from unknowing the exact case that he needs to meet out during the course of the trial. Framing of a charge is not a mere formality, but is a judicious act, which has to be performed after due application of mind and after examining the challan, which has been submitted by the police before the Court. 6. In the instant case, according to the site plan, the alleged crime took place inside a house. Not only the complainant, but also other witnesses claimed that the offence took place inside a house. Therefore, prima facie a case exists for offence under Section 452, IPC. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that learned trial Court has not even brothered to discuss the contention raised by the Counsel. Although a detailed reasoned order is not necessary, but once contention has been raised by the Counsel, it should be dealt with by a reasoned order. Thus, the impugned order is highly cryptic. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct the learned trial Court to re-hear the parties with regard to the framing of charge for offence under Section 452, IPC and to frame a charge, if sufficient evidence exists in the challan paper in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. With these observations, this petition is disposed of .