Ramesh Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6603 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27524]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1045/2023 Ramesh Chandra S/o Shri Udayram Katara, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Dodiya, Police Station Sadar, District Dungarpur. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Dungarpur)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Rama @ Ramlal S/o Shri Dungar Ji Patel, R/o Jhakol Police Station Sadar, Dungarpur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Sanjay Mathur
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
                                Mr. Gaurav Shrimali
                                Mr. Shambhoo Singh
                                Mr. Jitendra



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

29/08/2023

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition

challenge has been made to the order framing charge dated

04.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act

Cases, Dungarpur in Criminal Sessions Case No.65/2023 for the

offences under Sections 354, 354-A, 376, 376-3 of the IPC and

Sections 5/6 & 9/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012,

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant material

available on record along with the grounds raised in the revision

petition.

[2023:RJ-JD:27524] (2 of 4) [CRLR1045/2023]

4. What is emanating from the material available on record that

the petitioner is a Principal of a Govt. School against whom

number of minor girls have levelled serious allegations of sexual

abuse, the details of which are not required to be reproduced

again but suffice it would be to say that from the evidence

collected so far till date, the statement of the minor girls, the

obscene and lascivious photographs and the report of the FSL,

prima facie a strong case is made out against the petitioner. After

filing of charge sheet and framing of charge, trial has been

commenced and statements of three witnesses including one

victim have been recorded in the trial.

5. The learned trial Judge has aptly appreciated the legal and

factual aspects of the matter and due opportunity was afforded to

the parties; their submissions were noted and discussed

thoroughly and then he passed a reasoned and speaking order

regarding framing of charges. Prima facie, an opinion can be

formed that there are reasonable grounds for presuming that the

accused-petitioner has committed the offences. It is nigh well

settled that at the time of hearing on the point of charge, the

Court is not required to go deep into the merits of the case.

Neither meticulous examination of the evidence is required to be

done nor threadbare discussion of the matter is warranted. At the

stage of framing of the charges, whether or not a prima facie case

is made out has to be seen and at the same time, the defence of

the accused is not required to be considered.

6. In a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap

[2023:RJ-JD:27524] (3 of 4) [CRLR1045/2023]

(Criminal Appeal No.407/2021 arising out of the SLP

No.3194/2021 decided on 13.04.2021), the law relating to

scope of interference in an order framing charge has been

discussed and this Court is aptly guided by the enunciation made

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant paragraphs of the

afore-mentioned judgment are reproduced as under:

"11. Having considered the reasoning given by the High Court and the grounds which are weighed with the High Court while discharging the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and has acted beyond the scope of Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. While discharging the accused, the High Court has gone into the merits of the case and has considered whether on the basis of the material on record, the accused is likely to be convicted or not. For the aforesaid, the High Court has considered in detail the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the accused which exercise at this stage to consider the discharge application and/or framing of the charge is not permissible at all. As rightly observed and held by the learned Special Judge at the stage of framing of the charge, it has to be seen whether or not a prima facie case is made out and the defence of the accused is not to be considered.

7. Considering the material available on record and following

the dicta passed in State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar

Kashyap (Supra), this court is of the firm opinion that there are

reasonable grounds to presume that the petitioner has committed

the offence alleged and for that, he deserves to be tried.

[2023:RJ-JD:27524] (4 of 4) [CRLR1045/2023]

8. Accordingly, there is no force in the instant Criminal Revision

Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

9. The stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial

strictly in accordance with the provision of law.

(FARJAND ALI),J 40-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)