AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking quashment of the order, dated 31.10.2015, passed in GR Case No. 370/2009 framing
charge against the accused-petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhubri.
[2] I have heard Ms. B Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel, Mr. SP Roy for the petitioner as well as Mr. TK Mishra,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent No. 1.
[3] I have perused the petition as well as the annexures furnished therewith, particularly the impugned order, dated 31.10.2015.
[4] It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide the impugned order, dated 31.10.2015, charge was framed against the
accused-petitioner and others in his absence. But, on perusal of the order, it appears that the accused-petitioner was very much present in the Court
on the said date and even he applied for allowing him to remain on previous bail, which was allowed by the learned trial court.
Thereafter, the case was split up against some of the accused to avoid delay in the trial. In respect of the present accused-petitioner charge under
Section 420 of the IPC was framed alongwith some other co-accused and the charge was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
[5] That apart, the learned trial court, after going through the materials in the record, and applying its mind found sufficient ground to presume that the
accused-petitioner and others have committed and offence under Section 420 of the IPC, and therefore, the charge was framed as aforesaid. It does
not appear from the materials placed before this Court and on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the proceeding before the learned
trial court there is any abuse of the process of the Court or that to secure the ends of justice, interference with the order framing charge is required.
[6] That being so, this Court is of the view that no interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC is necessary to
quash the order, dated 31.10.2015 framing charge against the accused-petitioner.
[7] Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.