AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Dhar, J
1 The petitioners have challenged the chargesheet emanating from FIR No. 434/2020 for offences under Sections 367/147/323 IPC registered with Police Station Kathua. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua whereby charges for offences under Sections 376/323/147 IPC have been framed against the petitioners.
2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.
3 As per the prosecution case, PW Ravinder Singh lodged a written report with the police alleging therein that while he was sitting in the house of Chatter Singh Mandal President, Block Nagri, the petitioners herein forcibly kidnapped said Chatter Singh from his house and that he along with other persons were threatened by the petitioners. It was further alleged that Sh. Chatter Singh was shifted in a vehicle bearing No. JK08G/0701 and was taken away in the said vehicle to an unidentified location. The report further went on to allege that Sh. Chatter Singh was recovered from the Police Post Nagri and he was having several injuries with two broken teeth and fractured legs.
4 After registration of FIR, the investigation of the case was set into motion and the allegations made in the FIR were substantiated by the statements of eye witnesses and other evidence collected during investigation of the case. Accordingly, chargesheet was laid against the petitioners before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, who, vide impugned order dated 25.07.2022, framed charges for offences under Sections 367/323 read with Section 147 of IPC against the petitioners.
5 The petitioners have challenged the impugned chargesheet and order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua framing charge against them on the ground that the complainant belongs to Bharatya Janta Party, whereas petitioner No.2 was a candidate in DDC election on behalf of BSP from Nagri constituency of District Kathua. It has been submitted that the persons supporting the BJP candidate were indulging in distributing money and liquor among the voters and when petitioner No.1 got knowledge about it, he along with his driver went on spot and called the In-charge of Police Post Nagri and informed him about the incident. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 caught the complainant red handed and brought him to the Police Post and handed him over to the police.
6 According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the complainant was indulging in illegal activities, it was the duty of the petitioners to hand him over to the police and, as such, no offence has been committed by the petitioners. It has also been contended that the impugned order of framing charge against the petitioners is non-speaking and, as such, the same deserves to be set aside.
7 So far as the contention of the petitioners that the complainant was indulging in illegal activity of distributing liquor for garnering support in favour of a particular candidate is concerned, there is nothing in the chargsheet to support this assertion. Aforesaid assertion of the petitioners may be a defence against the charges laid against them, but the veracity of the same cannot be considered by this Court in the proceedings under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is without any merit.
Coming to the contention of the petitioners that the order framing charge against the petitioners is non-speaking, in this regard, it is to be noted that it has been clearly indicated in the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua that the entire material on record has been perused, whereafter the Court has come to a, prima facie, conclusion that the petitioners have committed offences under sections 367/147/323 IPC.
9 At the time of framing of charges, a Sessions Court is not expected to give elaborate reasons, though reasons are necessary to be given if the accused is discharged. Section 227 of the CrPC makes it incumbent upon a Court to assign reasons for discharging an accused, whereas no such duty is cast upon the Session Judge under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C at the time of framing of charge against the accused. For this reason, the contention raised by the petitioners is without any merit and deserves to be rejected.
10 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition.
The same is, accordingly, dismissed.