Ram Kishan vs State of Rajasthan

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 10.04.2009 passed by the learned Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District Jaipur whereby the learned Magistrate has framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 447 & 453 IPC.

It is the case of the petitioner that even earlier vide order dt. 16.04.2008 charges were framed against the petitioner. The said charge order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Criminal Revision Petition registered as S.B. Cri. Revision Petition No. 325/2009. Vide order dt. 16.03.2009, this Court had directed the trial Court to rehear both the parties and to decide the charges afresh after taking into consideration all the facts and grounds which have been raised by the petitioner in the revision petition. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, despite the said order, the learned trial Court has not considered all the facts and grounds raised by the petitioner before the trial Court. Furthermore, the trial Court has not considered the issue that the possession of the plot in dispute was given by the Tehsildar to the petitioner u/s 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Therefore, the petitioner is continuing with the possession of the plot. Moreover, it was for the prosecution to prove that the complainant was in possession of the plot in dispute in order to make out an offence under Sections 447 & 453 IPC. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the ingredients of offence under Sections 447 & 453 IPC are conspicuously missing.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that at the time of framing of the charge, the existence of a strong prima facie case is sufficient for the trial Court to frame the charge. The issue as to who were in possession of the plot in dispute, and the defence that the possession of the plot in dispute was with the petitioner can be decided only during the course of trial. At the time of framing of the charge, the learned trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to meticulously examine and critically analyze the evidence that may be produced by the accused. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned trial Court has discussed the issues raised by the petitioner and has rejected the same. Therefore, the learned trial Court has committed neither any perversity, nor any illegality in passing the impugned order.

In this view of the matter, the revision petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.