Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 630 (RAJ)

Puran Mal Aheer v. State of Rajasthan

2024-04-19

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
ORDER : 1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 21.09.2023 & 08.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nimbahera, Camp Badi Sadari, District Chittorgarh whereby the learned Judge framed the charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 186/149, 189/149, 283/149, 332/149, 341,149, 323/149, 395/149 & 307/149 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits the trial court while passing the orders of framing charge against the petitioners did not consider the previous FIRs as well as statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Counsel further submits that firstly, FIR No. 124/2018 was registered at Police Station Nikumbh, District Chittorgarh for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC and thereafter, FIR No. 125/2018 was registered at Police Station Nikumbh, District Chittorgarh for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 380, 436, 438, 427, & 452 of the IPC. Thereafter, the present FIR No. 126/2018 was registered at Police Station Nikumbh, District Chittorgarh. During investigation in the present FIR, the police also considered the aforesaid FIRs and filed the charge-sheet. Counsel submits that the trial court while ignoring the aforesaid FIRs, passed stereotyped orders of framing charge against the petitioners. Therefore, orders of framing charge are absolutely illegal and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the orders passed by the learned trial court and contended that learned trial court has considered the materials available on record for framing charge against the petitioners and therefore, the orders impugned are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as material available on record. 5. It is settled proposition of law that a Court, while framing charge, is under an obligation to fully advert to the material available on record and not to blindly adopt the decision of the prosecution. The framing of charge is the edifice of the entire trial and therefore the court must explain the charges framed against an accused person. Upon examining the impugned order, it appears that the trial court has acted in a mechanical manner while framing charge and has not at all made any endavour to spell out the reasons for framing charge aforesaid against the petitioner. 6. Upon examining the impugned order, it appears that the trial court has acted in a mechanical manner while framing charge and has not at all made any endavour to spell out the reasons for framing charge aforesaid against the petitioner. 6. The trial court while passing the orders of framing charges has not discussed the previous FIRs as well as the statements, injury reports and other aspects of the matter. Hence, the learned trial Court has committed manifest error of law and fact in passing the impugned orders and consequently, the impugned orders dated 21.09.2023 and 08.12.2023 cannot be sustained and the same are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court for considering the question of framing charge afresh strictly in accordance with law. 7. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Stay application is also decided accordingly.