Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2464 (RAJ)

Naresh Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-16

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 17.06.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Hanumangarh may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner to the extent of Section 302 IPC and petitioner may kindly be discharged from the offence under Section 302 IPC". 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, are that on 15.01.2021, complainant/respondent No. 2 filed an FIR bearing No. 0021/2021 at Police Station Bhirani, District Hanumangarh, for the offence under Sections 302 and 143 IPC against the present petitioner and his family members, stating therein that his sister (Deceased-Suman) was married to the present petitioner and at the time of their marriage, ample articles and ornaments by way of the Stridhan were given. The complainant/respondent No. 2 further stated that present petitioner and his family members used to treat her in an inhumane manner, and physically tortured her. 2.1. It was further alleged in the FIR that in the month of July, 2020, a panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute between the families, and to try and figure out the root cause of the dispute, but that the present petitioner did not extend any cooperation in relation thereto. That on 15.01.2021, the present petitioner and his family members killed the complaint's sister by hanging her. 2.2. After the investigation into the said FIR, the concerned police authorities filed a charge sheet for the offence under Section 306 IPC against the present petitioner, but filed a negative final report against the other family members. 2.3. Thereafter, the learned Court below vide impugned order dated 17.06.2022 framing charge for the offence under Section 306 IPC alongwith Section 302 IPC (in alternative) against the present petitioner. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR in question was lodged against eight persons, including the present petitioner-husband; most of the persons arrayed as accused were in-laws of the deceased, who were not residing with the petitioner, but the complainant chose to file a false case against the petitioner and his family members. 4. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR in question was lodged against eight persons, including the present petitioner-husband; most of the persons arrayed as accused were in-laws of the deceased, who were not residing with the petitioner, but the complainant chose to file a false case against the petitioner and his family members. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the deceased died by suicide by hanging, and that the same is also supported by the investigation officer to the effect that he opined that the cause of death was hanging, that too, ante mortem. Thus, as per learned Senior Counsel, the learned court below failed to appreciate the said material aspect, while passing the impugned order of framing of charge. 5. On other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for respondent/complainant opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the learned court below has rightly passed the impugned order after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidences placed on record, to the extent necessary at the stage of the framing of charge. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant, in support of the complainant's case, placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Vijay Pal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttrakhand (2014) 15 SCC 163 ; Ravirala Laxmaiah v. State of A.P. (2013) 9 SCC 283 and Rajbir @ Raju v. State of Haryana (2010) 15 SCC 116 ; he further placed reliance on the judgments rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Court in the cases of Kashmir Singh v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Cri. Appeal No. 150 of 1984 decided on 21.12.1989); Smt. Kusumlata & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Pet. No. 369 of 2000 Decided on 13.04.2007); Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 973 of 2007 Decided on 17.05.2012); and Shri Hitesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cri. Revision Petition No. 705 of 2016 Decided on 17.11.2016); he further relied on the judgments of various Hon'ble High Courts rendered in the cases of Ricky Kataria Sukhbir Kataria and Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (CRL. REV. P. No. 645 OF 2017 Decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.03.2019); Mamtaz Bibi and Ors. Revision Petition No. 705 of 2016 Decided on 17.11.2016); he further relied on the judgments of various Hon'ble High Courts rendered in the cases of Ricky Kataria Sukhbir Kataria and Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (CRL. REV. P. No. 645 OF 2017 Decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.03.2019); Mamtaz Bibi and Ors. v. State of West Bengal (Cri. Revision No. 108 of 2013 Decided by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court on 02.04.2013); and Dharmendra Nishad v. State of U.P. (Cri. Appeal No. 5538 of 2016 Decided Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on 08.09.2021). 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, along with the judgments cited at the Bar. 8. This Court finds that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors. (2012) 1 SCC 680 and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290 . 9. This Court on an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the impugned order, and the precedent laws governing the field, finds that the learned court below has taken into due consideration each and every aspect of the case, to the extent necessary at the stage of framing of charge, before passing the impugned order, and thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order is a speaking order, and does not suffer from any legal infirmity, so as to warrant any interference therein. 10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.