Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22165) on 8 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22165]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 66/2025
Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Subhash Chand Bishnoi, Aged About 48
Years, R/o 11 T.k. P.s. Raisinghnagar, Dist. Anoopgarh, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Amritpal Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, R/o Chak F.a.
Majiwala, P.s. Srikaranpur, Dist. Sriganganagar,raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
08/05/2025
The instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
(Section 438/442 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner against
the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions
Case No.33/2021 whereby the learned Judge framed the charges
against the petitioner for offence under Sections 302, 302/149,
307, 307/149, 323/149 & 447/120-B of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court
has passed the order of framing charge against the petitioner in a
mechanical manner without duly considering the statements of
witnesses and the material available on record. Counsel further
submits that the trial court while considering the question of
framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the
[2025:RJ-JD:22165] (2 of 3) [CRLR-66/2025]
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima-facie case against
the accused has been made out, however, in the case in hand, a
perusal of the impugned order reveals that the court failed to
record any such requisite satisfaction, thereby undermining the
legality of the order. Counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that
the petitioner has not been named in the FIR, nor any specific
overt acts or allegations are attributable to him that would
establish his direct involvement in the crime. Further, it is
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after perusal of a video
recovered from the injured eye-witness Satendra Singh and CCTV
footage would show that presence of the petitioner has not been
shown either in the said video or CCTV footage. Counsel further
contends that the petitioner has been enrobed as an accused with
the aid of Section 120-B of IPC on the ground that he was
involved in the conspiracy and his so-called tower location and call
details. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order to the
extent of framing charge for the aforesaid offences against the
petitioner being per se illegal may be quashed and set aside.
Learned AAG vehemently opposed the prayer made by the
counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the learned trial
court has justifiably framed the charge for offence under Sections
302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 323/149 & 447/120-B of IPC against
the petitioner. The impugned order of framing charge is perfectly
justified and requires no interference from this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order of framing charge passed by the trial court.
[2025:RJ-JD:22165] (3 of 3) [CRLR-66/2025]
Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 26.06.2024, this
Court observed that the framing of charges must be based on
credible evidence establishing a prima-facie case, and that
mechanical and cursory assessments are impermissible. The
failure to record proper satisfaction renders the order illegal.
In view of the above, the learned trial court without proper
discussion of every aspect of the matter as well as without
consideration of the documents available on record has framed the
charge for offence under Sections 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149,
323/149 & 447/120-B of IPC against the petitioner, which is per se
illegal, unsustainable and warrants interference, thus, the
impugned order of framing charge for the aforementioned offences
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Hence, the impugned order of framing charge against the
petitioner is set aside and it is just and proper to remand the
matter back to the trial court, with directions to scrutinize the
evidence thoroughly and pass a fresh and reasoned order after
hearing to both the parties in accordance with law.
The present criminal revision petition is disposed of
accordingly. Stay application is also decided.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
6-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
