Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 15.2.2012 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No. 192/2011, whereby the application u/s 216 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

The prosecution''s case, in short is that, a charge sheet was filed against the applicant and other accused persons, which was duly committed to the Sessions Court and the trial Court had framed the charges under Sections 302 and 302 /34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the M.P. Protection of Debtors Act. After sometime, the prosecution had filed some documents in the case i.e. merg intimation, FIR and case diary statements of Kiran Raikwar and Manoj in the trial Court and thereafter, the applicant had moved an application to discharge him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the submissions made by the parties, dismissed the application on 15.2.2012.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that the entire case depends upon the circumstantial evidence. The trial Court has framed the charges as mentioned above after considering the prosecution''s documents and thereafter, no revision was filed against the order of framing of the charges. The documents filed by the prosecution are of no such nature so that the framing of the charges may be considered again. The learned counsel for the applicant mainly depends upon the law laid by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Harveer Singh and Others Vs. State of M.P., that before passing the judgment, the trial Court can modify and enhance the charges framed against the accused. The Provision of Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. also gives a power to remove the mistake committed in framing of the charges.

In the present case, the application of the applicant appears to be omnibus. It is nowhere mentioned that what is the change, he wanted, after filing of those documents. When the case depends upon the circumstantial evidence then, filing of such documents does not make any negative effect on the prosecution''s case and therefore, after framing of the charges, the trial Court cannot discharge the applicant u/s 216 of the Cr.P.C. Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the trial Court to modify and to enhance the charges but it does not have any power to discharge the accused, if the charges are framed. The trial Court has no power to review its own order. After framing of the charges, its review could not be done by the trial Court. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicant Rajesh Kumar Yadav against the order dated 15.2.2012 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No. 192/2011 cannot be accepted and hence, it is hereby dismissed.

Since the revision is dismissed therefore, the interim relief directed on 8.8.2012 is hereby vacated. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information so that the judgment can be pronounced.