Vinod Ahir And Others vs State Of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar Garg, J

The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 148/149, 341/149, 323/149, 325/149, 427/149, 395/149 & 397/149 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after thorough investigation, challan has been filed for the offences under Sections 395, 325, 427, 323 and 341 of the IPC against the petitioners but the learned trial court has added the offence under Section 397/149 of IPC without assigning any cogent reason. Counsel submits that the trial court did not consider the evidence as well as the injury report and other aspects of the matter and directly framed the charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 397/149 of IPC. Counsel further submits that the trial court passed a stereotyped order of framing charges against the petitioners without assigning any cogent reason. Therefore, orders of framing charge for offence under Section 397/149 of IPC is absolutely illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Learned Public Prosecutor supported the order passed by the learned trial court and contended that learned trial court has considered the materials available on record for framing charge against the petitioners and therefore, the order impugned is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as material available on record.

It is settled proposition of law that a Court, while framing charge, is under an obligation to fully advert to the material available on record and not to blindly adopt the decision of the prosecution. The framing of charge is the edifice of the entire trial and therefore the court must explain the charges framed against an accused person. Upon examining the impugned order, it appears that the trial court has acted in a mechanical manner while framing charge and has not at all made any endavour to spell out the reasons for framing charge aforesaid against the petitioner.

Since the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 395, 325, 427, 341 and 323 of the IPC only. The trial court had not assigned any cogent reason for framing charges against the petitioner for offence under Section 397/149 of IPC. Hence, the learned trial Court has committed manifest error of law and fact in passing the impugned order and consequently, the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court for considering the question of framing charges and is directed to pass a fresh and reasoned order after hearing both the parties.

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Stay application is also decided accordingly.