Ayoob Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 959 MP

                                      1                                   MP-1234-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   MP-1234-2021

(AYOOB ALI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Jabalpur, Dated : 22-03-2021 Shri R.K. Samaiya, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.K. Malvi, PL for the State.

Heard on the question of maintainability.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of framing of charge

Annexure P-3 dated 25.1.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara, District Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 36/2020 by which the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC have been framed against the petitioner.

The office has raised the objection that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable because against the order Annexure P-3 dated 25.1.2021, criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. should be filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment

of the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2018 SC 2039 has submitted that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order Annexure P-3 dated 25.1.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara, District Tikamgarh in Session Trial No. 36/2020 by which the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC have been framed against the petitioner. In Para-3 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that there is no other alternative remedy provided except to approach the Hon'ble High Court in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. (supra). I am not agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for 2 MP-1234-2021 the petitioner because in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is observed by the Supreme Court that "only in the case of patent illegality or want of jurisdiction, High Court may exercise its jurisdiction. Acknowledged experience is that where challenge to order framing charge is entertained, matter remains pending for long time which defeats interest

of justice. If at stage of charge, High Court adopts approach of weighing probabilities and re-appreciate material, it may be certainly time consuming exercise. Legislative policy of expeditious final disposal of trial is thus, hampered. Thus, even while reiterating view that there is no bar to jurisdiction of High Court to consider challenge against order of framing charge in exceptional situation for correcting patent error of lack of jurisdiction, exercise of such jurisdiction has to be limited to rarest of rare cases."

In the present case, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is any patent illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Thus, in my considered opinion, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Against the impugned order, criminal revision under Section 397/401 would be maintainable.

Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. Petition, if so advised, may file criminal revision against the impugned order.

Let certified copy of the impugned order be returned back to the petitioner on submitting photocopy thereof.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE

PB

Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2021.03.24 09:56:27 +05'30'