AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.H. Joshi, J.—Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
By order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 123/2009, present Respondents, who were accused Nos. 2 to 4 in RCC No. 566/2006, have been discharged.
It was a State case, filed against the accused persons under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that the accused persons, acting together with common intention, cheated the complainants by presenting news to them that they would secure employment for them, and recovered money for that purpose.
Application Exh.44 filed by the accused persons for discharge was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, however, the same has been allowed by the Sessions Judge by allowing the revision application.
In present petition the State has challenged the said order of the Sessions Judge, allowing the application filed in the trial Court Exh.44 and discharging the present Respondents.
The State as well as Respondents have relied on the contents of the FIR.
Learned Advocate for the accused persons has placed reliance on reported judgment in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi and Others Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, . The proposition laid down in the said judgment is that, when the matter available before the Court at the time of framing of charge discloses commission of the offence, the accused can certainly be tried.
The State urges that the contents of the complaint do adequately describe the imputations as to commission of the offenses alleged, while present accused persons dispute it to be so.
In view of the controversy, it was found necessary to peruse the FIR which was done.
The FIR, which is in Marathi, adequately describes role of each accused persons.
It has to be noted that the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia. Moreover, what witnesses have stated is referred to by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment in paragraph No. 11.
The discussion by learned Sessions Judge is the effect of almost microscopic analysis of the case papers, which exercise is not the phenomenon to be undertaken while scrutinizing whether, on what is seen prima facie, there exists material to proceed against the accused.
If the scrutiny of such or full depth is required to be done at this stage, question is: What shall remain to be done by the trial Court at the stage of trial ?
This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the type of scrutiny done by Sessions Court results in throttling procedure of trial of the accused in the midst, which is contrary to the scheme of law.
Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not justified.
Throttling the further process, based on microscopic analysis of the evidence at this stage, is not contemplated.
In the result, petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 123/2009 is set aside. Application Exh.44 of RCC No. 566/2006 is dismissed.