Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2774 (RAJ)

Kishan Lal v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-11-17

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur, District Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 17/2015 may kindly be quashed". 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are that one Mangilal S/o Shri Naru committed suicide on 23.05.2011 in front of the Police Station, Gangapur. As a result of which, an FIR bearing no. 104/2011, dated 24.05.2011, was registered at Police Station, Gangapur for the offence under Section 306 IPC against the present petitioners. On the same day yet another FIR bearing no. 105/2011 was registered before Police Station Gangapur under Section 302 and 120B IPC against the accused persons including the present petitioners and certain police officers; alleging therein that owing to some pending litigation between deceased-Mangilal and the present petitioners, regarding the sale of lands situated at Village Pothala Araji Nos. 2963, 2964, 2965, 2973, 2957, 2965/7779, 2967, 2968, and 2970, and that, the present petitioners denied to fulfill the sale of the said lands and transfer the possession of the same to deceased-Mangilal, despite receiving agreed consideration towards the same from him, and that, Mangilal passed away by suicide on 23.05.2011. 3. Thereafter, the concerned police authorities filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners no. 1 to 3, for the offences under Section 306 IPC, and against the petitioner no. 4 for the offences under Sections 306 and 120B IPC; upon which the case was committed to the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur and the learned Court, vide the impugned order dated 22.09.2022, framed charges for the offence under Section 306 IPC against the present petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the transaction, with respect to the sale of the lands between the deceased-Mangilal and the present petitioners was cancelled; and an agreement for cancellation of the said transaction was also executed on 14.01.2011, at the instance of the deceased himself. That there was no other dispute between the deceased-Mangilal and the present petitioners, after the conclusion of the said transaction. 5. That there was no other dispute between the deceased-Mangilal and the present petitioners, after the conclusion of the said transaction. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the ingredients constituting the offences both under Section 107 IPC and Section 306 IPC, are clearly absent, and therefore, the impugned order, framing the charges against the present petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the impugned order is a cryptic order, and therefore, the same is unsustainable in the eye of law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the complainant-respondent no. 2 has passed away during pendency of the present petition, and in light of the above averments, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. On other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners 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. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 10. This Court observes, looking to the present stage of criminal proceedings, that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, fulfills the parameters required for passing of an order, framing the charges against accused person(s), and was passed after looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. This Court further observes that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned Trial Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence nor 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 . 12. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court, at this stage. 13. Consequently, the present petition fails, and the same is hereby dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.