Gopa Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ''the revisional court'') in Criminal Revision Petition No. 3/2012, whereby the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. In the said revision petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara, District Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial court'') in Criminal Case No. 465/2009, whereby the trial court has directed to frame charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court as well as the revisional court have not taken into consideration the fact that the agreement executed by the petitioner along with three other persons in respect of his Khatedari land falling in Khasra No. 2024 was not enforceable and on the basis of said agreement, no right has been accrued to the complainant. It is also contended that the enforceability of the agreement in question is required to be considered by the trial court before framing of charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. It is contended that when the agreement on the basis of which the complaint has been filed by the complainant is not at all enforceable no case for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is not made out against the petitioner and, therefore, the trial court has erred in ordering for framing of charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and revisional court has also erred in affirming the order of the trial court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.

The trial court has also considered the submission of the petitioner that the agreement in question in respect of Khasra No. 2024 was not enforceable and, therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioner. However, after considering the same, the trial court has observed that as per the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, , the material produced by the accused in his defence cannot be taken into consideration at the time of framing of charges. The trial court has also taken into consideration the judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and Others, , Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others, and Kanti Bhadra Shah and Another Vs. The State of West Bengal, and has held that at the time of framing of charges, the Court has to see whether prima facie evidence is available against the accused to proceed with the trial. The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.

The revisional court has also taken into consideration the fact that at the time of framing of charges, the Court has to look into the prima facie evidence, and the critical examination of the material available on record for the defence of the accused cannot be allowed to be taken into consideration at the time of framing of charges.

After going through the impugned orders passed by the courts below, this Court is of the opinion that when the prima facie evidence is available against the petitioner, the trial court has rightly ordered for framing of charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and rightly refused to take into consideration the documents produced by the petitioner in his defence at the time of framing of charges.

In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merits in this criminal misc. petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.