Shiv Lal Sharma vs State And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 17399 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 179/2018

Shiv Lal Sharma S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 44 years, R/o Village Sukhamand, P S Asind, District- Bhilwara Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan

2. Shanti Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Chand Sharma, R/o Village Sukhamand, P S Asind, District- Bhilwara Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tribhuwan Gupta for Mr. Usman Ghani For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bishnoi, Pubilc Prosecutor

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order

22/11/2021

The instant revision petition has been filed against the

order dated 4.1.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Gulabpura, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 28/2017,

whereby charge under Section 436 IPC was framed against the

petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the Investigating Officer Narayan Singh was out of station on

relevant dates from 21st June, 2017 to 26th June, 2017. As no

question arises for Investigating Officer to record the statement of

the witnesses on relevant dates. There is no independent

eyewitness of the incident. Land dispute is there between the

parties. Learned trial court has not assigned any reasons for

framing charge against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

(2 of 2) [CRLR-179/2018]

petitioner relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of R.S. Mishra vs. State of Orissa & Ors : (2011) 2 SCC

689, has prayed to set aside the impugned order framing charge

against the petitioner and in the alternative, he prays to remand

back the matter for passing fresh speaking order.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions

made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

After perusing challan papers, it is revealed that the

complainant Shanti Lal, Ram Prasad and Raju have supported the

prosecution story. They may be interested witnesses, however, at

this stage, their statement cannot be discarded for the purpose of

framing charge. So far as non-availability of the Investigating

Officer for recording the statement of the witnesses is concerned,

the trial court may call the case diary during trial for satisfying

itself about correctness of the allegations levelled by the

petitioner. Petitioner shall also have an opportunity to cross-

examine the Investigating Officer.

In the above circumstances, learned trial court did not

commit any illegality in framing charge against the petitioner.

Looking to the availability of evidence against the petitioner, the

impugned order cannot be set aside only on the ground of non-

assigning of any reason for framing charge by the trial court.

Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

94-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)