AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
Challenge in this criminal miscellaneous petition is to the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 24/2024, whereby learned Second Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed challenge of order dated 04.03.2024 of framing of charge.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Judicial Magistrate has not considered the entire facts available before it. Police has projected false facts in the charge-sheet. On the date of incident, motorcycle driven by son of petitioner was seized for alleged commission of offence under Section 4/181, 190/2, 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said vehicle was taken in custody vide order dated 01.11.2023 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. When the petitioner went to Police Station for getting custody of the said vehicle pursuant to the above order, false case was prepared by the Police. He also submits that there is no prima facie material available in charge-sheet for framing of charges under Section 294, 506, 323, 186, 332 and 353 of IPC. Learned revisional Court also has erroneously dismissed the revision on extraneous considerations.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that from the documents filed along with the criminal miscellaneous petition, it is appearing that incident is of 24.10.2023 and FIR was lodged on 24.10.2023 at about 6 pm. Complainant/informant is Shivnarayan Kurre who is posted at Police Station Palari, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh as Assistant Sub-Inspector. In FIR there is specific mention that on 24.10.2023 at about 5:20 pm petitioner came to Police Station shouting that who has kept the motorcycle of his son in Police Station, started abusing in filthy language and misbehaving, to which the complainant has tried to stop him by advising him that he should not use such abusive language, upon which petitioner threatened of life and interfered with discharge of his official work. The incident was witnessed by other Police Officials present in the Police Station. He submits that according to statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of complainant- Shivnarayan Kurre, Kamal Kewart-Head Constable, Den Singh Netam – Constable, G.N. Verma – Constable and Triloki Baghel- Constable have also narrated the same facts stated by him. Learned Magistrate considering the material available in charge-sheet has framed charges. Hence, the learned revisional Court justified in dismissing the revision.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused documents placed on record.
Petitioner has filed Ishtigasha No. 140/2023 mentioning the date and time of incident as 24.10.2023 at about 5pm for offence under Section 4/181, 190/2, 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the body of Ishtigasha, it is mentioned that minor child of petitioner was driving the motorcycle dangerously, he was stopped and upon checking by the Police Officer it was found that he does not possessed the pollution card. The motor cycle is handed over by petitioner to the minor knowing very well that the person who was driving the vehicle was minor. Copy of the FIR filed along with Ex. A-03 would show that date and time of incident subject matter of the criminal case is 24.10.2023 at about 6 pm i.e. immediately after registration of Istighasha. There is specific allegation against the petitioner in the FIR as also the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
Law with regard to interference with the charge framed by trial Court is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decisions in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659 explaining the meaning of the word “presumed” has observed thus:
“32. ...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 committed 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 charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.”
Yet in another case, State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kahyap (2011) 11 SCC 191, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that at the time of framing of 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.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460 laid down the guidelines for considering the challenge to framing of charge has held as under:
“27.2 The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
27.3 The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
27.9 Another very significant caution that the Courts have to observe is that it cannot examined the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of Court leading to injustice.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) 15 SCC 584, while considering the challenge of framing of charge held that, High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not required to go for mini trial and held thus:
“7. We are of the view that the High Court could not have conducted a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge, and that too in revision filed against the order framing charges. We are of the view that it it impossible to state at this stage that no case could possibly be made out for ultimate conviction of respondent no. 2. This being the case, we set-aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Trial Court.”
In the light of aforementioned decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, if facts of the present case is taken into consideration, perusal of FIR would show that report was lodged on 24.10.2023 at about 6 pm alleging that petitioner on 24.10.2023 at about 5:20 pm, petitioner in an intoxicated state came to Police Station shouting that who has kept the motorcycle of his son in the Police Station, started abusing in filthy language and misbehaving. When he requested petitioner not to use any abusive language, upon which petitioner threatened of life and interfered with discharge of his official work. The incident was witnessed by other Police Officials present in the Police Station at the relevant point of time and they have narrated same facts as stated by complainant in his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC.
At the stage of framing of charge, it is not required for the Court to form definite opinion that accused is guilty of committing offence but Court has only to presume that there are grounds to proceed against accused. At the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the material cannot be gone into but the material brought by prosecution has to be accepted as true. The defence of accused is not be looked into at the stage of framing of charge, which would be subject matter of trail.
From the aforementioned facts as available, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned.
This petition being devoid of any merit, accordingly it is dismissed.
However, it is made clear that trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observation made by this Court in this order, as the same are only confined to decide this petition. The trial Court should decide the criminal case on its own merit based on evidence to be brought in by the respective parties.
Office is directed to send the copy of order to the learned trial Court.