Recently, the single judge bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that mini trial is not permissible at the stage of consideration of framing of charge for the purpose of ascertaining whether the case will end in conviction or acquittal. At the stage of framing of the charge, the Court is required to mainly rely on the prosecution case. However, if there is any clinching evidence going to the root of the prosecution case, same is permissible to be considered at the stage.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the order was passed by the trial court whereby he has framed formal charges against the petitioner/accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Therefore, the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashment of the said order.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that after taking into consideration the FIR lodged by the Tehsildar and final report presented and pending before the learned trial court that prima facie case is made out.
The court furthermore observed that it is well-settled law that where an FIR or Final Police Report apparently discloses the commission of cognizable offences, the Court should hesitate to interfere with the investigation in the case unless there is some clinching evidence going to the root of the matter.
The court noted that the stage of consideration of framing of charge, Court has not to conduct an inquiry but has to see whether on the basis of the documents, in support of the Police report/challan, a prima facie ground appears to be made out for framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to consider the broader probabilities of the case and even a strong suspicion, can warrant the framing of charge.
The court furthermore noted that most of trial Magistrates entrust the drafting of the interim orders including orders regarding framing of charge to the sub- ordinate staff, upon hearing the cases, under their verbal directions. The Magistrates are required to either write the interim orders under their own hand or let them be typed in their presence and under their own dictation.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there exists no illegality in the impugned order.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court dismissed the Petition.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Bhagat Vs UT of JK
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani
Case No.: CRM(M) No. 327/2025 CrlM no. 634/2025
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate
Picture Source :
