Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1786 (RAJ)

Mohan Lal Rao v. State of Rajasthan

2008-07-28

S.P.PATHAK

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated 17.02.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota in Case No. 8/2007 whereby charge under sections 147, 323, 323/149, 452 and 504 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, `the Act') has been framed. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order passed by the learned trial court is absolutely non-speaking. It is also contended that there is no iota of evidence against the accused- petitioner in view of the material placed before the court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that the court was required only to be prima facie satisfied for the purpose of framing charge and that aspect of the matter has been considered properly by the court, therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. 1 have considered the submissions made before me. 4. The facts of the case reveals that the FIR No. 95/2006 was lodged by Banshidhar Sonkhiya against the petitioners wherein it was alleged hat the accused-petitioners gave beatings to the complainant when he was sitting in the office. FIR was registered under sections 147, 323, 452 and 504 IPC. It is significant to note that in relation to same incident another FIR bearing No. 97/2006 was also lodged by Narainlal Verma. The police registered the case against the accused-petitioners under sections 147, 323, 323/149, 452, 504 IPC and section 3(1 )(x) of the Act. It is also significant to note that on 30.11.2006, the police submitted a final report in FIR No. 97/2006 and subsequently on completion of investigation challan was filed in RR No. 95/2006. Thus, it appears that to take the matter within four corners of the provisions of the Act, charge-sheet was filed. Be that as it may, the order passed by the learned trial court nowhere reflects anything about the material placed on record and it only speaks about the charge to be framed against the accused petitioners under sections 147, 323, 323/149, 452 and 504 IPC and section 3(1 )(x) of the Act. Be that as it may, the order passed by the learned trial court nowhere reflects anything about the material placed on record and it only speaks about the charge to be framed against the accused petitioners under sections 147, 323, 323/149, 452 and 504 IPC and section 3(1 )(x) of the Act. It is correct at the time of framing charge the material available on the charge-sheet is required to be seen but at the same time it is the duty of the court to take into consideration the material for arriving at the conclusion that there is grave suspicion and prima facie case is made out against the accused. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the court has in a mechanical way passed the order, therefore, in my opinion, the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order framing charge against the accused-petitioners is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial court with a direction to pass a fresh order of framing of charge in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******