Allahabad High Court
Safina vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 21 December, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1329 of 2022
Revisionist :- Safina
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohammad Aziz Mansuri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Rape along with POCSO Act), Shravasti in Sessions Case No.37 of 2022 "State vs. Haroon Rayni and others" arising out of Crime No.284 of 2021, under Sections 363, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station Malhipur, District Shravasti, thereby rejecting the application of the revisionist filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging the revisionist.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is innocent against whom there is no material warranting framing of charge against him. His further submission is that the first information report bearing no.284 of 2021 dated 30.09.2021, under Sections 363, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Malhipur, District Shravasti came to be lodged by the opposite party no.2 against named persons excluding the present revisionist. However, during investigation, on the basis of some alleged material/evidence against the present revisionist, charge sheet came to be filed against him under Sections 363, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 16/17 POCSO Act.
He also contended that keeping in view the provision of Section 227 Cr.P.C., learned court below was wrong in holding that the document and evidence being relied upon by the accused persons could not be seen and considered at the stage of framing charge. Thus, he submits that the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 being palpably illegal deserves to be set aside and the instant criminal revision deserves to be allowed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayed by submitting that it is settled legal position that at the stage of framing charge, the jurisdiction of learned court concerned is limited. No roving enquiry or holding a mini trial at this stage is permissible. His further submission is that the fact that this fact finds mention in the impugned order that learned court below heard the learned counsel for the parties, the present revisionist belies the treatment that the revisionist was not heard before learned court below.
Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal for the record, it transpires that the first information report bearing no.284 of 2021 dated 30.09.2021, under Sections 363, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Malhipur, District Shravasti came to be lodged by the opposite party no.2 against named accused persons excluding the present revisionist. However, during investigation, sufficient evidence was collected against the revisionist and charge sheet came to be filed before learned court below against the revisionist under Sections 363, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 16/17 POCSO Act.
It is trite that at the stage of framing charge, learned court below cannot hold a mini trial to ascertain the incorrectness of the prosecution case. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Palwinder Singh vs. Balwinder Singh and others reported in 2009 (1) JIC (SC), Soma Chakravarty vs. State through CBI reported in (2007) 5 SCC 403 and State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-corruption vs. N. Suresh Rajan and others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709 to the effect that no mini trial can be held at the stage of framing charge and also truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution or defence story cannot be ascertained at this stage which is a subject matter of trial.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
The instant criminal revision, thus, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, it is needless to mention that in case the revisionist seeks bail, the same shall be disposed of in strict accordance with law having regard to the facts of this case and the evidence available against the present revisionist by the learned Court concerned.
Order Date :- 21.12.2022/Mahesh
