Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 953 (RAJ)

Kanwar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2017-04-11

P.K.LOHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 challenges order dated 04.02.2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (for short, ''learned revisional Court''), whereby learned revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition of petitioner and confirmed order dated 16.07.2015, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (for short, ''learned trial Court''). 2. The learned trial Court, by its order dated 16.07.2015, after hearing arguments on charge, recorded its finding that, prima facie, offences under Section 420, 193 & 120-B IPC are made out against the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners approached the learned revisional Court but the learned revisional Court, while concurring with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court, dismissed the revision petition. 3. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent complainant submitted a complaint against petitioners attributing offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. The learned trial Court, while resorting to Section 156(3), sent the complaint to Police Station, Nohar, District Hanumangarh for investigation and thereupon FIR No. 313/2007 was registered. On conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 420, 193, & 120-B IPC. The learned trial Court took cognizance for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and summoned them. Upon their appearance before the learned trial Court, both the petitioners joined the issue and at the stage of framing of charge made their submissions. The learned trial Court, after hearing arguments on charge, found prima facie evidence against the petitioners to frame charges for the aforesaid offence. Feeling disdained, petitioners approached the learned revisional Court but their that effort also proved abortive. 4. I have heard learned Senior Counsel as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order and other materials available on record. 5. The term "charge" is defined in section 2(b) Cr.P.C., 1973 which reads as under: 2(b) "charge" includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one" 6. 4. I have heard learned Senior Counsel as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order and other materials available on record. 5. The term "charge" is defined in section 2(b) Cr.P.C., 1973 which reads as under: 2(b) "charge" includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one" 6. Thus, the charge is "a precise formulation of the specific accusation made against a person who is entitled to know its nature at the earliest stage." To put it in more clear and unequivocal term, the purpose of a charge is to tell an accused person as precisely and concisely as possible of the matter with which he is charged and must convey to him with sufficient clearness and certainty what the prosecution intends to prove against him and of which he will have to clear himself. There is no quarrel in the legal position that at the time of framing charge, the Court is not required to screen evidence or to apply the standard whether the prosecution will be able to prove the case against accused at the trial. The contents of charge are envisaged under Section 211 Cr.P.C., 1973 and while framing charge if the Court has found a prima facie case against accused, he cannot be discharged for the offence. In the instant case, learned trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioners and considering legal precedents, by a detailed order dated 16th of July 2015, prima facie found a case for framing charge against the petitioners for aforesaid offences. 7. When at the instance of petitioners, the aforesaid order of learned trial Court was assailed before learned revisional Court, the learned revisional Court also examined the matter threadbare and while recording its satisfaction about correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the learned trial Court, dismissed the revision petition. 8. As the matter has been examined by both the Court below appropriately and there is no inkling in the impugned order that learned trial Court has not examined the matter and essentials for framing charge objectively, in my considered opinion, no case for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is made out. 8. As the matter has been examined by both the Court below appropriately and there is no inkling in the impugned order that learned trial Court has not examined the matter and essentials for framing charge objectively, in my considered opinion, no case for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is made out. It is also noteworthy that although inherent powers of this Court are wide in amplitude but such powers are required to be exercised very sparingly and in absence of any proof about abuse of the process of the Court, it is not desirable for this Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction. 9. In totality, I have not been able to find any manifest error in the impugned order passed by learned revisional Court as well as in the order passed by learned trial Court which can be categorized as abuse of the process of the Court. 10. Consequently, petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.