Dharambir vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure P-7), whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the trial Court, whereby charge was framed against him, being not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the revision petition challenging the order, whereby charge was framed against the petitioner, was maintainable. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Kaniz Fatima Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, , wherein, it was held as under:

Learned counsel for the petitioners made a valiant attempt to argue that the Revisional Court was justified in receiving documents from the accused persons at the hearing of the revision and decide the legality of the order taking cognizance on that basis. Before the High Court a similar contention was raised but has been turned down for reasons that are evident from a reading of the passage extracted by us above. We see no error or perversity in the view taken by the High Court that in a revision petition photocopies of documents produced by the accused for the first time, could not be entertained and made a basis for setting aside an order passed by the trial Court and dismissing a complaint which otherwise made out the commission of an offence. The accused is doubtless entitled to set up his defence before the trial Court at the proper stage, confront the witnesses appearing before the Court with any document relevant to the controversy and have the documents brought on record as evidence to enable the trial Court to take a proper view regarding the effect thereof. But no such document, the genuineness whereof was not admitted by the parties to the proceedings, could be introduced by the accused in the manner it was sought to be done. We may in this regard gainfully refer to the decision of this Court in Minakshi Bala Vs. Sudhir Kumar and Others, where one of the questions that fell for consideration was whether in a revision petition challenging an order framing charges against the accused, the latter could rely upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr. P.C. and whether the High Court would be justified in quashing the charges u/s 482 of the Cr. P.C. on the basis of such documents. Answering the question in the negative this Court held that while an order framing charges could be challenged in revision by the accused persons before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the revisional Court could in any such case only examine the correctness of the order framing charges by reference to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr. P.C. and that the Court could not quash the charges on the basis of documents which the accused may produce except in exceptional cases where the documents are of unimpeachable character and can be legally translated into evidence. The following passage is, in this regard, apposite:

If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240 Cr. P.C. on a finding that a prima facie case has been made out as has been done in the instant case the person arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Judge to contend that the charge-sheet submitted u/s 173 Cr. P.C. and documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for which he is charged and the revisional court if so satisfied can quash the charges framed against him. To put it differently, once charges are framed u/s 240 Cr. P.C. the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 Cr. P.C.; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on Rajbir Dhiman and others vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein, it was held as under:-

On the other hand, charge framed in criminal case can certainly be challenged by accused by filing revision petition and if sufficient ground is made out, charge can certainly be quashed.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

In the present case, petitioner is facing trial in FIR No. 83 dated 30.6.2007 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Sadhaura. Charges were framed against the petitioner by the trial Court on 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-5). Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner preferred a revision petition. Vide impugned order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure P-7), the Court of revision dismissed the revision petition being not maintainable. However, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Helios Matheson Information Technology Ltd''s case (supra), revision petition challenging order framing charges against the accused is maintainable.

In these circumstances, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure P-7) is set aside. The Court of revision is directed to dispose of the revision petition on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the court of revision on 29.7.2013.