Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2583 (ALL)

Vinay Kumar @ Biroo v. State Of U. P.

2019-11-18

ANIRUDDHA SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri Desh Ratan Mishra, learned counsel for revisionists and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA. Perused the record. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred against order dated 20.8.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Barabanki in Criminal Case No. 459 of 2015, under Section 326/34, 506 IPC, Police Station Asandra, District Barabanki whereby prayer for discharge of revisionists was rejected and charges have been framed against them. 3. In the nutshell, facts of the case are that F.I.R. was lodged against Vinay Kumar @ Biroo, Ram Kumar @ Ramu, Ranjeet and Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeet alleging that victim Mintu Singh (son of complainant) was caught hold by accused persons and assaulted with sword, he received injuries and lost the eyesight of right eye. After investigation charge sheet was submitted. Prayer for discharge was refused. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that impugned order is illegal, against facts and law and without applying judicial mind. 5. Learned AGA opposed the contention of learned counsel for revisionists and submitted that order passed by the Court concerned is legal and revision has no force. 6. From perusal of record, it transpires that all above arguments were also raised before the trial Court and all such pleas of the revisionists have been discussed in detail in the impugned order; thereafter plea for discharge was rejected and charges were framed by the Court concerned on 20.8.2019. Charges were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi. They pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Salman Salim Khan, 2004 (48) ACC 606 (SC) has held that revisional power cannot be exercised to quash charge framed by lower Court. 8. In the case of Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & another in Appeal(Crl.) No. 1138 of 2001 decided on 6.11.2001, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. 9. In the case of Nemichand Jain vs. Roshanlal and others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 461 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the Stage of framing charges, the High Court should not have considered the whole evidence and then concluded that there were no materials to frame charges under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the case on the basis of the charges framed by Sessions Court under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. 10. According to Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, if the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused-revisionists, then he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing but according to Section 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, if the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, charges shall be framed by judge. Hence, it is very clear that at the time of framing of charge, it is not necessary to record reason but when the Court discharges the accused, it is necessary to record reason. According to Section 228 Cr.P.C. on the basis of presumption charges may be framed. Word ‘Presuming’ indicates that charge may be framed if court presumes. 11. It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge, defence evidence of the accused shall not be considered, accused have right to produce evidence at the stage of defence after recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Hence, they have further opportunity to produce the evidence. 12. It is very settled law that revisional power cannot be exercised to quash the charge framed by the court as have been held in above mentioned cases (supra). 13. 12. It is very settled law that revisional power cannot be exercised to quash the charge framed by the court as have been held in above mentioned cases (supra). 13. This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 20.8.2019. The view taken by Court below is plausible view, hence no interference is called for by this Court. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. The revision is dismissed at admission stage. 15. Copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately.