Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2484 (RAJ)

Javed Hussain v. State of Rajasthan

2006-08-18

SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

body2006
Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-By this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 402 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, referred to hereinafter as CrPC), has been filed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand, in Criminal Regular Case No.70/2006 ( State vs. Tarun Purohit & Others), whereby the charges under Sections 292 of IPC and 67 of the Information Technology Act,2000 (hereinafter referred as Technology Act,2000) and Section 4/6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act,1986 (hereinafter referred as Indecent Prohibition Act) were framed. 2. Briefly stated, the necessary facts for the disposal of present revision petition are that one Shri Gopal Arora submitted a written-report before the S.H.O. Police Station, Rajnagar on 03.04.2005 stating, inter-alia, therein that his sister after having passed First year examination, started taking coaching in english from a lady teacher and during that period she came in contact with one Tarun Pruohit and developed friendship. On his asking to go for ride in car, she accompanied him. She was given cold drink mixed with some drug and after that her obscene snaps were taken with the help of mobile and thereafter, she was being harassed by accused Tarun Purohit and was also blackmailed and was asked to act as per the desire of Tarun Purohit. It was also alleged in the FIR that she was seen by his brother Gopal on two occasions and when she was asked to explain about the accused, she narrated entire story to his brother and his brother after hearing the entire story on account of fear of being defamed, sent her to his native place but accused Tarun Purohit on coming to know that she had left Kankroli and has gone to her native place, by preparing the video clippings, sent some obscene photos on mobiles to the family members of the girl. It is also stated in the report that a gang is operating whose main object is to trap the innocent girls and to take their obscene photographs / prepare video clippings etc for the purpose of blackmailing them. It has also been stated that obscene photographs and video clipping have been sold in the market of Kankroli. It has also been alleged that in some hotel near Kankroli in a room some obscene photographs were taken of the girl. In the above activities other accused persons are also involved. It has also been stated that obscene photographs and video clipping have been sold in the market of Kankroli. It has also been alleged that in some hotel near Kankroli in a room some obscene photographs were taken of the girl. In the above activities other accused persons are also involved. By submitting above report on being disclosed offence being committed under Section 292, 120-B of IPC and under Section 4/6 of Indecent Representation of Women Act, and also under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, Criminal Regular Case No. No.70/2006 was registered and investigation was commenced. .3. During the course of investigation, some of the accused persons were apprehended and they were arrested and from the possession of the accused a mobile was recovered on his information and on going into gallery of mobile, obscene photograph clippings were found of some girls and ladies in different nude positions. It was found that a gang is operating and all the accused persons are taking .advantage of young girls and they are being trapped and subsequently are being blackmailed. It was also found in the investigation that accused Javed has obtained video clipping from another accused Pradeep, which were prepared by Suprateek as he was having computer shop. The computers and other material used in preparing photo graphs and clippings, the same have been recovered. The matter has been kept pending in relation to some of the accused persons under Section 173(8) of CrPC. 4. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the sides, framed charges as stated hereinabove against the accused petitioner along with other persons vide its order dated 15.06.2006 in Criminal Regular Case No.70/2006 (State vs. Tarun Purohit & Ors.). 5. The accused petitioner felt aggrieved of the framing of charges, has preferred this revision petition with the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand dated 15.06.2006. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the material available on record. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the legal position at the time of framing charge as no case whatsoever having been made out either under Indian Penal Code or under the other Acts. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the legal position at the time of framing charge as no case whatsoever having been made out either under Indian Penal Code or under the other Acts. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as far as disclosure of statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act by the accused and another co-accused are concerned, that could not be of any assistance to the prosecution as the same being the statement of co-accused. It has also been submitted that the prosecution for the reasons best known to it, made the petitioner as an accused whereas in the facts and circumstances of the case he ought to have been a witness. It has also been submitted that accused has got nothing to do with the girl involved in this case and also the name of the girl which having been disclosed by him has not been made a witness. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me to various documents filed along with charge sheet including arrest memo, disclosure statement of the accused petitioner and other accused persons, and also the statement of the girl involved in this case and her brother and other witnesses. .8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the offence is of serious nature. It has also been submitted that after advancement of the technology such type of matters are now coming for investigation and in the instant case the learned Trial Court after scanning evidence and material available on record, has framed the charges and at the stage of framing charge submissions made before the Court and satisfaction of the Court are of prime consideration for framing the charges. It has also been submitted that the statement of co-accused and other evidence which has been been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is subject matter of evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that it is too premature stage to come to a conclusion that no case is made out against accused petitioner. .9. I have carefully considered the submission made before me. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that it is too premature stage to come to a conclusion that no case is made out against accused petitioner. .9. I have carefully considered the submission made before me. 10. A perusal of the of the CrPC and provisions relating to framing of charge clearly indicate that at the time of framing of charge, the trial Court is required to hear the submissions made on behalf of both sides and thereafter the trial Court if satisfied with the material, can frame charge. At the stage of framing of charges a mini inquiry of trial is not required to be held because that is not the purpose of various provisions of the CrPC. While framing charges, the material which has been placed on record by the Prosecution is required to be gone into and no other material is required to be taken in to consideration at the time of framing of charge and this procedure does not in any way come in the way of the right and liberty of the accused person. At the stage of framing of charge roaming and fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the learned Counsel is accepted that at the time of framing charge the matter is required to be gone in to in detail then it would mean that there would be mini trial at the stage of framing charge and that would defeat the object of the provisions contained in relation to framing of charge in the CrPC. 11. It has also been well settled position of law that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth and the reason for this is that at the stage of framing of charge to consider defence of the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and examination thereof at that stage which is against criminal jurisprudence. 12. In case any authority is needed on the point then reference may be made to State of Bihar vs. Ramesh 1977(4) SCC 39 , Superintending of Legal Remembrance vs. Anil Kumar, AIR 1980 SC 52 and State of Bihar vs. Ramesh, 1977 (4) SCC 39 . 13. 12. In case any authority is needed on the point then reference may be made to State of Bihar vs. Ramesh 1977(4) SCC 39 , Superintending of Legal Remembrance vs. Anil Kumar, AIR 1980 SC 52 and State of Bihar vs. Ramesh, 1977 (4) SCC 39 . 13. After having considered the submissions made before me, when impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is gone through then it appears that matter of the petitioner is inter-connected with other co-accused persons and it cannot be said that prima faice there is no material to justify framing of the charges against the accused petitioner. The case of the accused petitioner is required to be considered along with other co-accused persons. I do not want to express any opinion at this stage as to what other circumstances are available on record which prima facie satisfies that accused petitioner was involved in the present case for the simple reason that it may effect either side of the case during the course of trial. 10.14. I do not find any substance at the stage in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that prima facie in the absence of any ingredients available in the present case against the accused petitioner of the offences regarding which charge has been framed and order impugned of framing charge suffers from illegality, therefore, it should be set aside. 115. In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.