Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai vs State on 22 December, 2011
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/332/2011 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 332 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
RAMESHBHAI
KOLUBHAI CHAUDHARI & 4 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MRUDUL M BAROT for
Applicants
MR HL JANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 22/12/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Present Revision Application is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. by the applicants against the order dated 21.6.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Navsari, by which present applicants were directed to face the charge under Sections 302, 120 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel, Mr.Mrudul Barot for the applicants submitted that looking to the report furnished by the Investigating Agency, there is nothing produced on record to connect the present applicants as an accused of 302 of IPC. He further contended that the Investigating Officer has committed gross error in not properly investigating the matter and the same is partial. He further submitted that learned Judge has not considered the report of the Police Officer in connection with the said offence. He also submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and therefore, the order of the learned Judge is required to be quashed and set aside.
3. Learned APP, Mr.Jani for the respondent - State submitted that what is challenged by way of this Revision Application is addition of Charge by way of the order impugned. He further submitted that Charge framed in a criminal proceedings, cannot be challenged by way of Revision Application. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2002 SC 107. Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, particularly Para.3 and 4, he contended that prima facie, this application is not maintainable and same deserves to be dismissed. Relevant Para.3 and 4 of the aforesaid decision read, thus :
"3.We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Saha and Anr. v. State of West Bengal has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges.
4. In the instant case the learned Judge ignored the basic principles which conferred the jurisdiction upon the High Court for exercise of revisional powers. It was premature for the High Court to say that the material placed before the trial court was insufficient for framing the charge or that the statement of the prosecutrix herself was not sufficient to proceed further against the accused-respondent."
4. Having perused the material on record and taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Munna Devi (supra), it is a settled law that charge cannot be challenged by way of a Revision Application.
5. In view of the aforesaid observations, present Revision deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
6. It goes without saying that the Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
(Z.K. SAIYED, J.) (vipul) Top