(1 of 2) [CRLR-351/2021] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 351/2021 Darshan Solanki @ Darshu S/o Balu Ram, Aged About 21 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Liyo Ka Guda, Ambamata Udaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Bahla Shah S/o Shabir Shah Bohra, Aged About 19 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o 11, Parshuram Colony, Nimachkhera, P.s. Ambamata, Dist. Udaipur.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Kapil Purohit, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aneesh Bhurat, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Judgment / Order 08/04/2021 Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.4, Udaipur by which the learned Judge framed the charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307/34 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has framed the charges against the petitioner in a very mechanical manner because while passing the order impugned the learned trial court has not considered the statements, injury report, x- ray report and other material documents available before it. Counsel submits that as per injury report, the complainant have received two injuries, which are neither grievous and dangerous to life nor on the vital part of the body, which could cause death, therefore framing of charge for offence under Section 307 IPC is illegal. The impugned order is nothing but a non-speaking order as no reasons have been assigned (Downloaded on 08/04/2021 at 09:03:37 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLR-351/2021] in the impugned order by the learned trial court for framing charges for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner. Thus it is prayed that the order of framing charge may be set aside and the matter be remanded to the trial court for passing a fresh order.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order is perfectly justified and requires no interference from this Court and prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
I have considered the submissions advanced before me and gone through the impugned order of framing charge.
From the perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the order impugned has not considered the material aspects of the matter as well as has not even looked into the statements recorded before the Police, injury report and other documents. The learned trial court has passed the order impugned in a mechanical manner and without application of mind as no reasons or findings have been given in the impugned order of framing charge. The impugned order being mechanical in nature deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice.
In view of above, the order impugned dated 25.01.2021 passed by the trial court is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial court with the direction to pass a detailed reasoned/speaking order in accordance with law, after considering all the material evidence available before it and after hearing both the parties.
The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Stay petition also decided.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 19-MS/-
(Downloaded on 08/04/2021 at 09:03:37 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)