Dinesh Kumar Saxena vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3094 UK

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

       Criminal Misc. Application No.1771 of 2023
                    (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.)

Dinesh Kumar Saxena                                         ....Applicant

                                    Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                         ....Respondents

Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, DAG along with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Brief Holder for the State.


                          With
       Criminal Misc. Application No.1730 of 2023

Smt. Ankita Rohatgi                                         ....Applicant

                                    Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                         ....Respondents

Ms. Indu Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, DAG along with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Brief Holder for the State.


                                                        Dated: 12.10.2023

Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

C482 No.1771 of 2023 has been filed by the

applicant/accused Dinesh Kumar Saxena for quashing of

order of framing of charge dated 04.08.2018 and the

order dated 04.08.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate,

Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar on the discharge

application of the applicant/accused as well as the order

dated 24.07.2023 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions

Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in

Criminal Revision No.167/2018.

2. C482 No.1771 of 2023 has been filed by the

applicant/accused Smt. Ankita Rohatgi for quashing of

order of framing of charge dated 04.08.2018 and the

order dated 04.08.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate,

Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar on the discharge

application of the applicant/accused as well as the order

dated 24.07.2023 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions

passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur,

District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision

No.172/2018.

3. Since the controversy involved in these two

petitions is same, therefore, for the sake of convenience,

these petitions are being disposed of by a common

judgment/order.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants would

submit that the charge sheet was filed against the

applicants/accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with 34 of IPC;

that, the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur framed the

charge against the applicants/accused under Sections

420 & 120B IPC; that, at the time of commission of

offence the applicants/accused were Branch Manager

and Joint Manager respectively; that, in the impugned

order of framing the Charge by the trial court dated

04.08.2018 no reasons for framing the Charge are

stipulated; that, aggrieved from the order of framing the

Charge dated 04.08.2018, the applicants/accused filed

two separate revisions; that, the revisional court by the

impugned orders dated 24.07.2023 dismissed the

revisions and affirmed the orders of Judicial Magistrate,

Jaspur of framing of Charge against the

applicants/accused.

They would further submit that at the most if

any allegation can be there against the

applicants/accused that may be of negligence in not

discharging their duties as the Branch Manager and

Joint Manager.

Counsel for the applicants would further

submit that as per the pronouncement of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "Century Spinning and Manufacturing

Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra AIR

1972 SC 545" the trial court should not act like a Post

Office at the time of framing the charge, rather, it has a

duty to judicially consider the question of doing so by

adverting to the material available on the record and not

to blindly adopt the decision of prosecution.

5. Per Contra, counsel for the State would submit

that the present C482 applications are misconceived and

against the record; that, at the time of framing the charge

the trial court is not required to state the reasons for

framing the charge.

He would further submit that reasons are

necessarily to be stated by the trial court if the trial court

decides not to frame the charge as alleged in the charge

sheet but not vice versa.

He would admit at Bar that at the time of

framing the Charge the trial court should look into the

evidences collected and placed in the charge sheet, but it

is not required to state minutely in the order of framing

the charge as to what are the evidence on the basis of

which the charges are being framed. He would further

submit that at the time of framing the Charge the trial

court is not required to weigh the evidence so as to look

into the probative value of the evidence; that, at the time

of framing the charge if the trial court is of the view that

prima facie case is made out against the accused then

charge can be framed.

6. In the light of respective submissions as stated

above, the Court perused the impugned orders. The

revisional court observed that there are prima facie

evidence that after hatching the criminal conspiracy

forgery was done, therefore, the order of framing the

Charge against the applicants/accused is not bad in the

eyes of law. While doing so, the revisional court cited the

case-laws of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of

Maharashtra and others Vs. Somnath Kapa and others,

1996 CRLJ 2448", "Hem Chand Vs. State of Jharkhand

(2008) 5 SCC 113" and "Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and

others Vs. State of U.P. and another AIR (2013) SC 502".

7. In Som Nath Thapa (supra), it is observed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

"...if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have commit the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials cannot be gone into and the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."

8. In Hem Chandra case (supra) Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"...The Court at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out. Whether a case of probable conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation should be the concern of the Court. It, at that stage, would not delve into the matter for the purpose of appreciation of evidence. It would ordinarily not consider as to whether the accused would be able to establish his defence, if any."

9. In Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat (supra) it is

observed as under:-

"Allegations made against the accused whether or not those allegations are true is a matter which cannot be determined at stage of framing charges. Any determination can take place only at conclusion of the trial. Courts below did not commit any mistake in refusing discharge."

10. The submissions made by the counsel for the

applicants/accused that at the time of framing charge

the trial court was supposed to look into and travel into

the evidences and should pass a reasoned order with

details of evidence is not correct proposition of law.

11. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find

any merit in these applications moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Same are hereby dismissed.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 12.10.2023 BS