Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2302 (RAJ)

Manfool v. State of Rajasthan

2023-12-22

MADAN GOPAL VYAS

body2023
JUDGMENT : Madan Gopal Vyas, J. The present Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Sessions Case No. 21/2022 (CIS no. 100/2021) whereby the learned trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 148, 364 in alternative 364/149, 302 in alternative 302/149 and 120B of the IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality while framing the charges against the petitioner for the offences aforesaid. It is submitted that the incident happened on 31.05.2021 at 3 PM whereas the FIR was lodged on 01.06.2021 at about 11.15 AM, therefore, there has been a delay of about 19-20 hours in lodging the FIR and there is no explanation for the said delay. It is further submitted that the complainant has produced eye witnesses, namely Sohan Ram and Shyamlal and both the eye witnesses have not named the petitioner in their statements. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he was also not present at the place of incident. There was no pre-meeting of minds between the accused persons. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged criminal conspiracy. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Criminal Revision Petition may be allowed and the impugned order framing charges against the petitioner for the offences aforesaid may be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the father of the present petitioner, who is the owner of the Bolero Camper bearing registration No. RJ 43 GA 2245 (which was used for abduction of Ramswaroop), specifically stated that the said vehicle was being driven by the petitioner on 31.05.2021 and it is the petitioner who was in possession of the said vehicle. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the offending vehicle was recovered from the petitioner and the learned trial Court after considering all the material available on record has rightly passed the order framing charges against the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the offending vehicle was recovered from the petitioner and the learned trial Court after considering all the material available on record has rightly passed the order framing charges against the petitioner. Lastly, it was prayed that the present revision petition may be rejected. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From a perusal of the material available on record, as per the prosecution story and the reply to notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as from the recovery memo, prima facie, it appears that there was involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra has summarized the principles and has held that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: ".... 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. ... 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. ... 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. ... 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist." 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana reported in, while reiterating the observations made in Amit Kapoor (supra) has observed that: "17. This is a case where the charges have been framed and the Accused are awaiting trial. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that the investigation and the follow-up steps are not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous (except to the extent we propose to mention before concluding our judgment) that allowing the trial to progress might cause a miscarriage of justice. This is also not an appropriate stage to delve deep into the records. It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, conviction or acquittal of the Accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the Accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. ..." 8. Therefore, on applying the principles laid down as above, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned order. Learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2022. The impugned order is based on the material available on record. The order is well reasoned and speaking one and warrants no interference. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order framing charges dated 17.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Sessions Case No. 21/2022 (CIS no. 100/2021) is upheld. 10. The impugned order is based on the material available on record. The order is well reasoned and speaking one and warrants no interference. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order framing charges dated 17.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Sessions Case No. 21/2022 (CIS no. 100/2021) is upheld. 10. It is further directed that the learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this judgment while deciding the case. 11. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Petition is hereby rejected. Stay petition also stands disposed of. 12. No order as to costs.