Javed Memon vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Special Judge (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe [Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dhamtari in Special Sessions Case No.14/2014, whereby charges under Sections 294 & 506-B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act of 1989’) has been framed against the applicant.

Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that complainant Uttam Kumar Samrat was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gatta-Silli and on the basis of the complaint filed by the applicant, the complainant was removed from the post of Sarpanch by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue and the prescribed authority, Tahsil and District Dhamtari for various irregularities including financial illegalities committed by the complainant vide order dated 25.06.2014 and also disqualified the complainant for further six years to contest any elections of the Gram Panchayat. The said order dated 25.06.2014 was challenged by the complainant directly before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur and obtained stay order dated 2.7.2014. Thereafter, against the said stay order dated 2.7.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, the applicant filed a Writ Petition (C) No.1700/2014 before this Court and this Court has stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 2.7.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur on 1.9.2014. Thereafter, by virtue of the order dated 1.9.2014 passed by this Court, the complainant was again removed from the post of Sarpanch by the Chief Executive Officer by order dated 18.09.2014. The complainant was removed from the post of Sarpanch vide order dated 18.09.2014 and immediately on the next day i.e. 19.09.2014 the complainant lodged the FIR alleging that the applicant had abused him at 11 A.M. on 19.02.2014 when he was talking to the hand-pump operator Ahsaram and also abused him with derogatory abusive words towards his caste and threatened with life. On the basis of said report, Crime No.24/14 was registered at Police Station Dhouli against the applicant for offences under Sections 294 & 506-B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Act of 1989.

After competing the necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, Dhamtari on 17.12.2014 and after hearing the parties on framing of charges, the learned Special Judge vide impugned order dated 22.12.2014 framed the charges under Sections 294 & 506-B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Act of 1989 against the applicant. Hence, this criminal revision.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.12.2014 is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and therefore, liable to be set aside. The complainant had already threatened the applicant with dire consequences and to falsely implicate the applicant in criminal offence, against which the applicant had already filed a complaint before the police authorities. He further submits that even if the prosecution story is taken as it is, then also commission of offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act of 1989 is not made out against the applicant. From the allegation itself, it is clear that the same is not done in public place within public view, therefore, the essential ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act of 1989 are missing. The learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the evidence and documents placed before it in its correct perspective. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He would rely upon the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.263 of 1993 (Manharan v. The State of M.P. (decided on 28.06.2010) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.

On the other hand, Mr.Avinash K. Mishra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State supports the order impugned and submits that there is sufficient material available on record to prove the charges framed against the applicant.

In the matter of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057, it has been held that the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, the principle is reiterated that at this stage, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offence and only form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence and the relevant paras read as under:-

“21. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases.

The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, having perused the material filed by the prosecution and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, it cannot be  held that the Court below has wrongly framed the charges as aforementioned against the applicant. This Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient material available on record for the ingredients for which, the charges have been framed against the applicant. As such, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants are distinguishable to the facts of the present case.

In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position noted above, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned for framing charges against the applicant.

Accordingly, the Revision, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated.

It is made clear that the observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as as expression of any opinion on the merits of the case and the same shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law.