Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3131 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
PAPPU S/O SHRIKANHIYALAL JATAV, AGED ABOUT 40
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: SERVICE 15, BALDA COLONY
MHOWNAKA DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI GOPAL YADAV, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THR. P.S. ANNAPURNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE - G.A.)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present revision is filed under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against
order dated 13.09.2021 passed by XX ASJ, Indore in Sessions Trial
No.361/2020 whereby the charge against the applicant under sections 394, 395,
450 and 120-B of IPC have been framed.
2. As per the prosecution case, a complaint was lodged on 8.7.2020 by
the complainant alleging that around 4.00 p.m., 4 unknown persons entered her
house by showing a pistol. They robbed cash of Rs.40,000/- and some gold
and silver ornaments.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not been identified
by the complainant in the identification parade and no looted article has been
seized from him and therefore, the order of framing of charge is unsustainable.
He further submits that applicant has been implicated in the present crime only
on the basis of memorandum of co-accused under section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
4. Counsel for the State supports the order of framing of charge and
submits that the persons who were alleged to have entered the house have been
identified in the identification parade and there are call details of the present
applicant along with those accused persons and mobile location has been found
to be same and therefore, they have been charged with the help of section 120-
B of IPC.
5. After hearing learned counsel for parties, this Court does not find any
error in the order of framing of charge considering the prima facie material of
call details with the other accused persons who have been identified and mobile
location.
6. In this regard, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Orissa vs. Debendranath Padhi [2004 Law Suit (SC) 1408] is
worth to refer here as under:
"Further, at the stage of framing of charge roving and
fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the
accused is accepted, there would be a mini trial at the
stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object
of the Code. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing
of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put
forth."
7. In so far as the revisional jurisdiction in examining the order as to the
framing of charges is concerned, it is condign to quote the following extract of
the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan
v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198, herein below:
" 2 6 . The scope of interference and exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC has been time and
again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of
interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when
charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage
of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with
the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the
material and form an opinion whether there is strong
suspicion that the accused has committed an offence,
which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of
charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is
to be applied.
Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the
court should form an opinion that the accused is
certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold
something which is neither permissible nor is in
consonance with the scheme of the Code of Criminal
Procedure."
8. In terms of the revisional jurisdiction in examining the orders passed
by trial Court, the following excerpt of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the recent case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra reported as (2022) 9
SCC 460 is propitious to reproduce here under:-
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
power to call for and examine the records of an inferior
court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the
legality and regularity of any proceedings or order
made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right
a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There
has to be a well-founded error and it may not be
appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which
upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration
and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks
into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that
t h e revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the
decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there
is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding
recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is
ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are
merely indicative. Each case would have to be
determined on its own merits.
1 3 . Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and
cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the
inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an
interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in
mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself
should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is
dealing with the question as to whether the charge has
been framed properly and in accordance with law in a
given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of
i t s revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially
falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of
charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings
under the CrPC."
9 . In view of the aforesaid prepositions, the learned trial Court, while
framing of charges, must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on
record and must be satisfied that there is strong possibility subsist that the
accused has committed the offence. At the juncture of framing of charges, the
Court has to prima facie examine whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. Nevertheless, the Court is not expected to
evaluate or analyse the findings in order to arrive at the conclusion that the
material furnished by the prosecution are sufficient to convict the accused or
not? In the case at hand, the findings of learned trial Court regarding prima facie
case against the accused persons appear to be infallible.
10. With regard to the revisional power of this Court, it is well settled that
the jurisdiction of the revisional Court is not as that of an appellate Court, which
is free to reach its own conclusion on evidence untrammeled by any finding
entered by the trial Court. Actually the jurisdiction of revisional Court has a
limited scope. The revisional Court can interfere with the impugned order of the
learned trial Court only when it is unjust and unfair. In case where the order of
subordinate Court does not suffer from any illegality, merely because of
equitable considerations, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re-consider
the matter and pass a different order in a routine manner.
11. In view of the aforesaid principles of law and factual matrix of the
case that there are call details with co-accused persons and mobile location, this
Court is of the view that there is no illegality, perversity or infirmity found in the
impugned order of the learned trial Court regarding framing of charges against
the applicant, hence no interference is warranted by this Court. As a result
thereof, this revision petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
