Rajeshwar Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir

Proprietary of an order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu on 10.05.2016 is being called in question and the same prayed to be quashed by invoking powers under Section 561-A Cr. PC.

On a perusal of the order so passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, it appears that charge has been framed against the accused-petitioner herein for commission of offence under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120-B/201 RPC. On perusal of the final report submitted by the investigating agency and on hearing both the sides, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu was of the view that there is sufficient material to frame charge against the accused-petitioner herein for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120-B/201 RPC.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed is bad for the reason that the ingredients of offence under Section 467 RPC are not made out. There was no scope to infer the commission of offence of forgery with regard to any valuable security. Furthermore, according to him, the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu is a non-speaking order as the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge has not taken note of the relevant fact quoted in the final report. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu was not expected to act as post office and to frame the charge against the accused is being further submitted. Reliance is placed on the judgments of this Court in i) Goverdhan Gopal and ors. Vs. State and ors.; 2008(3) JKJ 366, ii) Suraj Parkash Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir; 2007 (2) JKJ 328. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of the M.P High Court reported in 2003(5) MPHT 559 titled Hemraj and ors. Vs. State of M.P.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu is within parameters of law. He has also referred to Section 30 of the RPC which defines the "Valuable Security". In addition to it, judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Om Wati and anr. Vs. State through Delhi Admn and others; 2001 (4) SCC 333 is also referred. It is also his submission that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu was not required to examine meticulously the material placed before him at the time of framing of charge. Reasons are not required to be noted, is also being canvassed. Reasons have to be jotted down only if the Court finds a case for discharge is made out and not otherwise, is also submitted.

Considered the rival submissions.

On perusal of the record available, it appears that a case was registered by Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu on receipt of a complaint from one S.S Jamwal, R/O Ward No. 13, Tara Nagar, Tehsil and District Kathua. The case against the petitioner herein (a resident of Village Ledodi, District Kangra (HP) has been registered for having procured a fake Permanent Resident Certificate under File No. 840 of 1960 of Tehsil Nowshera and District Rajouri while hatching a criminal conspiracy with his father in law K. Chander Singh, the then Tehsildar Nowshera. The same was alleged to have been used by the petitioner herein for allotment of the plot of land in Sainik Cooperative House Building Society along with other documents including an affidavit that he was a resident of Jammu and Kashmir State.

The Investigating Agency, on examination of the witnesses and seizure of the relevant record in this regard, came to the conclusion that the present petitioner and his father-in-law have committed offences under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120-B/201 RPC. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu after hearing the parties and on consideration of the material found sufficient material for charge of the accused and so, he has been accordingly charged. The petitioner having denied the correctness of the charge, the prosecution has been directed to lead evidence.

It may be appropriate herein to state that the Court is not required to sift meticulously the record before it while framing of charge against the accused as the standard for framing the charge and that of recording a finding of conviction or acquittal is different. It may be true that the Court is not required to act as a post office or to act casually in framing the charge but where the material collected by the investigating agency give rise to the grave suspension of the commission of offences, it can be treated as sufficient ground for framing of the charge and so to proceed ahead with the trial. It is also no more res-integra that for framing of the charge, a detailed order is not required to be jotted down. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Wati's case referred to hereinabove.

The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Goverdhan Gopal and others Vs. State and others would have no application herein as the learned trial Court has specifically indicated what are the allegations leveled against the accused person petitioner herein. The charge so framed has been read over to him. The judgment in Suraj Parkash Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir has been passed in appeal against the order of conviction and regarding commission of offence under Section 467 RPC and so that too would have no application herein. The next judgment relied upon in Hemraj and others v. State of M.P embodies the general principles of law regarding the framing of charges and it is in no way against the principle of law laid down in Om Wati's case.

Having regard to the material which was available before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu at the time of framing of charge and coupled with the definition of valuable security in Penal Code, I am of the opinion that correctness of the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu cannot be faulted with. Section 30 of the Penal Code may be relevant to be reproduced here to examine prima-facie of the merit of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Section 30 of the Penal Code reads as:-

"30. Valuable Security- The words "valuable security" denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right."

The definition referred (supra) is clearly suggestive of the fact that the impugned order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu is within parameters of law. Just a summary glance on the material record, does prima-facie indicate the case having been made out for trial of the accused for which he already stands charged by the trial Court. No ground is made out for interference by exercise of revisionary jurisdiction. Resultantly, the petition deserves dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected IA(s).

Copy of this order be send down along with record.