Babu Ram vs State of Haryana

S.C. Malte, J.

The petitioners in this case seek quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings based on it. At the outset it may be mentioned that this petition deserves to be dismissed on the simple ground that the petitioners have suppressed a material fact as regards the dismissal of the revision by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. That revision was against the very order of framing the charge which is now sought to be challenged by filing this petition.

This petition also deserves to be dismissed on the simple ground that it is nothing but another revision by the same person under the guise of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That is not permissible.

Before me a catena of decisions were cited to substantiate the ground that FIR deserves to be quashed if the FIR did not disclose any specific allegation against a specific person/petitioner. In this case it may be noted that after the filing of the FIR, the matter was investigated and chargesheet was submitted. Thereafter by an order, charge was framed. Framing of the charge in such cases takes place as per Section 240 Cr.P.C. which contemplates that the Magistrate frames charge if he is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. While doing that exercise, he takes into consideration the material before him and applies his mind. Against framing of the charge, the petitioner has taken the matter by way of the revision before the Sessions Court. That revision also came to be dismissed after considering the material in order to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists to justify the framing of the charge. The respondents'' counsel placed before me a case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru Khural, 1995(2) RCR 124. In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court expressed the view that when investigation is carried out on the basis of the FIR, and on the basis of material collected during investigation a charge is framed by the Court, there is no scope for evaluating the said material in order to ascertain whether the framing of the charge was justified or not. In my opinion, therefore, for the reasons stated above, the petition deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly.