Ram Babu Patel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 07.05.2019 passed in

S.T. No.14/2019, whereby 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhnodon District Seoni framed the charges against the applicant for the offence

punishable under Section 302 (two counts) read with Section 114 of I.P.C., Section 323 read with Section 114 of IPC, in alternate Section 302 (two

counts) read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution against the applicant, in short, is that there was dispute between victim and accused party. Gopal Patel s/o Khubbi Lal

purchased 3 acre of land, situated at village Thavri. Allu @ Manish and Bharendra went to cultivate that land. They both were stopped by Gopal, Man

Singh and Khubbi Lal because they purchased that land. Quarrel arose amongst them. Gopal, Man Singh and Khubbi Lal abused and beat them.

Accused Bharendra reported that matter in Police Station Dhanora. Crime No.195/2018 registered against Gopal, Man Singh and Kubbhi Lal under

Sections 447, 294, 323 and 506/34 of IPC. For taking the revenge of that quarrel, Bharendra, Allu @ Manish along with Rajesh, Vikki @ Vikram,

Munna @ Keshav, Dassu @ Dashrath, Bukka @ Nijam gathered together with arms and formed unlawful assembly on 06.10.2018, went to the house

of Man Singh and Khubbi Lal with an intention to assault and kill them. They entered into the house of Khubbi Lal, where Man Singh, Khubbi Lal and

Hemvati were present. Rambabu stood outside of the house and stated them to kill everyone, leave nobody and he will bear all the expenses pertaining

to criminal case arise out of that incident. Other co-accused assaulted on Man Singh, Khubbi Lal, who received the fatal injuries. Nilesh Patel s/o

Gopal shifted all injured to the hospital, Dhanora and informed the Police on 06.10.2018. Man Singh died at hospital, Dhanora. Khubbi Lal was shifted

to medical college, Jabalpur, however, on 14.10.2018 Khubbi Lal succumbed to death injuries.

Police registered dehati nalishi as 0/2018 for the offence punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 450, 294, 506 and 307 of IPC. Thereafter, added

the offence under Section 302 of IPC against each applicant. Original crime No.195/2018 registered at Police Station Dhanora. After investigation

charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of JMFC and the same was committed to the Court of session therefrom.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant-Rambabu has falsely been implicated in this matter. He is 100% blind. He was not present

on the spot. He was on duty in Government Middle School, Kahani, District Seoni at the time of incident. He has falsely been implicated on the basis

of previous animosity. Name of Rambabu was not mentioned in the FIR by the person, who lodged the FIR. Later on during investigation, witnesses

have falsely mentioned the name in another statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court has not considered this

fact in proper perspective and framed the charge against the applicant; therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be discharged from the

charges.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State submits that there are sufficient materials available on record to show that the applicant-Rambabu

instigated all the accused persons on account of animosity of the land. He was present outside the house of the deceased. He instigated all persons for

killing the deceased. At the stage of framing of the charges defence evidence cannot be considered; therefore, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the petition as well as case diary of crime No.195/2018

registered at Police Station Dhanora, it emerges out that name of the applicant finds no place in the FIR. In FIR names of the co-accused Bharendra,

Vicky, Rajesh, Manish, Nijam, Keshav and Dashrath were clearly mentioned by informant-Nilesh Patel s/o Gopal Patel, who lodged the FIR. It is

prima-facie reflected that Bharendra Patel lodged the FIR prior to this incident about the quarrel happened on agricultural field on account of

cultivation. Police reached on spot after receiving the information of incident and shifted the injured to hospital Dhanora. After perusal of the

documents, it is also reflected that while recording the statements of witnesses under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., witnesses clearly named Rambabu. The

witnesses stated the act of Rambabu that he was standing outside of the house and instigated co-accused persons for killing the victims. The co-

accused except Rambabu got entered into the house of the victim and committed marpeet.

On perusal of the whole case diary and documents filed along with charge-sheet, it cannot be said that there is no material available against the

applicant about his part taken during the incident. Counsel’s contention is that the applicant was not present on the spot at the time of incident, he

was present in the school. This Court is of the view that it is a defence of alibi, it cannot be considered at the time of framing of charges. If applicant

is 100% blind, it cannot be said that he could not take part in the incident and instigate the other co-accused. He is blind on one side and he is working

as a teacher on the other side. If he is working as a teacher, he might have planned the incident because previous to the incident, there was a quarrel

between the accused party and deceased.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu reported in AIR 2017 SC 796 in the same circumstances

considered the fact to which extent revisional Court interfered in framing of the charges and discussed the scope and jurisdiction under Section 397 in

para-26 to 29, which are relevant and reproduced as under :-

The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of

interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 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 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 scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Now, reverting to the limit of the scope of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., which vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an

inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set

right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding.

It is useful to refer to judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor and Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460, where scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. have been

succinctly considered and explained. Paras 12 and 13 are as follows:

Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the

legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.

There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful

consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be

invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no

evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative.

Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.

Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of

the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction

itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with

law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated.

Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.

The Court in para 27 has recorded its conclusion and laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 particularly in context of

quashing of charge framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. Para 27, 27(1), (2), (3), (9), (13) are extracted as follows:

Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions, i.e., Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional

distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only

difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to

cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction

under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:

27.1) Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be

exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be

exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

27.2) The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith

prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a

conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

27.3) The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction

or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.

27.9) Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether

there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole

whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.

27.13) Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined

to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide

admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.

Considering the above proposition of law as well as the evidence collected during investigation and filed along with charge-sheet, this Court finds

that there is material available on record for framing the charge against the applicant. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in

the order of framing of charge while exercising this revisional jurisdiction.

On the basis of foregoing discussions, this revision deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.

No order as to costs.