Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ranjeet Singh Alis Ranjeet Singh Gediya vs Superintendent Of Police ... on 17 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:45843]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1062/2025
Ranjeet Singh Alias Ranjeet Singh Gediya S/o Narayan Singh,
Aged About 57 Years, Resident of 85, Sona Bari, Gopalpura Bay
Pass, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Superintendent of Police, C B I, SC II New Delhi
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Adv assisted
by Mr. Priyanka Borana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, Spl. P.P. for CBI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgement
Judgment Reversed on : 23/09/2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 17/10/2025
By way of the instant revision petition, the accused petitioner
has approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated
08.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5,
Jodhpur Metro in Session Case No.164/2024 (State Vs. Lokendra
Singh Kalavi & Anr.) arising out of FIR No. RC.2(S)/2018-
SCU-V/SC.II/CBI/NEW DELHI, whereby, the learned trial Court
framed the charges against the petitioner under Section 109 read
with Sections 147, 148, 283, 307, 325, 326, 332, 342, 353, 354,
397, 435 of IPC and Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984.
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the
learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, are that complainant
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:42:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45843] (2 of 9) [CRLR-1062/2025]
Shambhu Singh Shekhawat, Sub Inspector, Police Station Malasar,
District Nagaur lodged an F.I.R. on 13.07.2017 at Police Station
Jaswantgarh, inter alia, stating that after the encounter of accused
Anand Pal Singh on June 24, 2017, at Village Malasar, Police
Station Ratangarh, District Churu, notices were issued to his
relatives for cremation, but they refused to accept them and
declined to take the dead body, which was eventually handed over
by Police Station Churu on July 1, 2017. The relatives, however,
did not perform the cremation and instead staged an agitation to
press their alleged illegal demands. On June 25, 2017, the Station
House Officer of Jaswantgarh was attacked with an intention to
kill, a government vehicle was damaged, and sabotage occurred
on the highway, leading to registration of FIR No. 108/2017. The
dead body was ultimately handed over on 03.07.2017. Thereafter,
efforts were made to reach a compromise through a committee
formed under the intervention of Late Lokendra Singh Kalvi
comprising other members. It is alleged that co-accused Lokendra
Singh provoked the committee members to raise their voice
against the administration instead of agreeing to the compromise
and issued a press note calling for a large condolence meeting to
facilitate a major agitation. On 11.07.2017, permission was
granted for the use of an amplifier during the condolence meeting.
On 12.07.2017, a WhatsApp group was allegedly used to mobilize
people for the agitation. Lokendra Singh Kalvi and his supporters
threatened the administration to accept their demands.
Subsequently, violent clashes erupted between the crowd and the
police; stones were pelted, vehicles were set ablaze, and police
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:42:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45843] (3 of 9) [CRLR-1062/2025]
personnel were assaulted. Around evening, several prominent
persons including Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi, Hanuman Singh
Khangta, Mahipal Singh Makrana, Durga Singh, Yogendra Katar,
and others attended the condolence meeting and allegedly incited
the crowd further. The mob then moved towards the railway
station armed with stones, lathis, and iron rods, attacking police
officers and causing injuries. Some police personnel were locked in
a room, and kerosene was poured with intent to set them on fire.
Platoon Commander Rajendra Singh was assaulted, and his
service pistol was looted. Superintendent of Police Parish
Deshmukh and his team were also attacked, and police weapons,
including an AK-47 and pistols, were stolen. Constable Shanker
Singh Rawat was found injured with kerosene smell on his body,
and a government jeep was found burnt near the railway station.
Based on these events, the present FIR was registered under
various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the
accused persons filed a counter FIR against the police and
administrative officers, alleging that encounter of Anand Pal Singh
was fake.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that
the learned Court below, without looking into the facts and
circumstances of the case, passed the impugned order, whereby it
proceeded with framing of charges against the revisionist -
petitioner. He further contended that the proceedings are
politically motivated and have been initiated solely to settle a
political vendetta. Moreover, the petitioner was not even present
at the place of incident therefore, there was no evidence,
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:42:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45843] (4 of 9) [CRLR-1062/2025]
whatsoever, available before the learned trial Court to frame
charges against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the
revisionist-petitioner vehemently argued that the court below has
not applied its mind before framing the impugned charges. The
impugned order is patently wrong, irregular and improper. Hence,
the revision petition may be allowed.
4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, while
opposing the aforementioned submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner, submitted that the learned court below, after taking
into due consideration all the facts and circumstances of the
present case and after considering the evidence placed on record
before it, has rightly passed the impugned order. Learned Public
Prosecutor further submitted that the learned court below has
passed the impugned order of framing of charges against the
petitioner, wherein a detailed analysis or a roving inquiry is not
required.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the entire material and evidence available on record.
6. While dealing with the scope of Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India
(UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Ors., (1979) SCC (CRI)
609 observed as under:
"8. .........Strong suspicion against the accused, if
the matter remains in the region of suspicion,
cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the
conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if
there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court
to think that there is ground for presuming that
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:42:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45843] (5 of 9) [CRLR-1062/2025]
the accused has committed an offence then it is
not open to the Court to say that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The presumption of the guilt of the
accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage
is not in the sense of the law governing the trial
of criminal cases in France where the accused is
presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is
proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding
prima facie whether the Court should proceed
with the trial or not. If the evidence which the
Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt
of the accused even if fully accepted before it is
challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by
the defence evidence; if any, cannot show that
the accused committed the offence, then there
will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with
the trial."
7. This Court is also conscious that at the stage of framing of
charges, the learned trial Court is not required to conduct a
meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the
same, as observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and
Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 290 in para 32 as under:-
"32. I. Scope of Section 227 and 228 of the
Cr.P.C.: The Court while considering the question
of framing charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C
has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for
the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case has been made out against the
accused. The test to determine prima facie case
would depend upon the facts of each case. If the
material placed before the court discloses grave
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:42:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45843] (6 of 9) [CRLR-1062/2025]
suspicion against the accused, which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully justified
in framing charges and proceeding with the trial.
The probative value of the evidence brought on
record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing
charges. The Court is required to evaluate the
material and documents on record with a view to
find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at
their face value disclose the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At this stage,
there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and
cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be
weighed as if a trial is being conducted."
8. It is settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing
charges under the Code of Criminal Procedure, if there is a strong
suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for
presuming that the accused had committed the offence, then the
Court should proceed with the trial. The sole requirement is that
the Court based on the available material, must be satisfied that
prima facie a case is made out against the accused. Meaning
thereby, if the material available on record sternly suggests that
charges are required to be framed, then the Court may proceed to
do so and the accused shall stand to trial. Further, the material
must be such which can be translated into evidence at the stage
of trial. The veracity and effect of the evidence are not to be
meticulously judged at this stage, nor is any weight to be attached
to the probable defence of the accused at the stage of framing
charges. The Court is not required to consider whether there is
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:42:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45843] (7 of 9) [CRLR-1062/2025]
sufficient ground for conviction of the accused, or whether the trial
is sure to end in the conviction.
Recently, the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs.
Pratima Behera reported in AIR 2025 SC 218 observed as
under:
"14..... at the stage of consideration of a petition
for discharge what is to be considered whether
there is a 'prima facie' case and certainly, the
endeavour cannot be to find whether 'clinching'
materials are there or not. In the common
parlance the word 'clinch' means 'point' or
circumstance that settles the issue. We have no
hesitation to hold that such meticulous
consideration for presence or absence of
clinching material is beyond the scope of power
of the Court while considering the question of
discharge under Section 239, Cr.P.C. as also while
considering the question of quashing of charge
framed by the Trial Court, while exercising the
revisional jurisdiction. It is to be noted that at
that stage the materials collected by the
prosecution would not mature into evidence and
therefore, beyond the question of existence or
otherwise prima facie case based on materials,
the question whether they are clinching or not
could not be gone into."
9. In the present case, the trial Court, after meticulously
examining the entire material available on record, has passed a
detailed and well-reasoned order. It has not merely acted in a
mechanical or perfunctory manner but has judiciously evaluated
the evidence, including the consistent and categorical statements
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:42:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45843] (8 of 9) [CRLR-1062/2025]
of key prosecution witnesses--namely, Shambhu Singh, Indraraj
Mertiya, Pareesh Deshmukh, Rakesh Meena and Malini Agarwal,
who have specifically mentioned the name of the revisionist-
petitioner in their statements in connection with the alleged
offence. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial
Court has taken into consideration every relevant aspect of the
case, including the factual matrix, the evidentiary value of the
statements of the witnesses and has formed a justifiable opinion
that there exist sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
revisionist-petitioner.
10. This Court, therefore, finds that the judicial precedents laid
down by the Apex Court are clear to the effect that at the stage of
framing of charge, the scope of interference of this Court, as a
revisional Court is very limited, so much so that the Court must be
concerned only with the question whether there is any suspicion
against the accused, and not with the proof of the allegation(s).
11. Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that if a strong
suspicion exists in the mind of the Court at the stage concerned,
then the same is sufficient for the Court to proceed with the
framing of the charges against the accused person(s). And if a
prayer for discharge has been made before a revisional court, then
the same may only be allowed if the court finds that the materials
on record are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial.
12. In view of the aforementioned precedential backdrop and the
observations made hereinabove, this Court does not find any legal
infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below
so as to warrant any interference, at this stage.
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:42:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45843] (9 of 9) [CRLR-1062/2025]
13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J
184-Anil/-
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:42:30 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
