Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasmer Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 February, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.2681 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 07, 2014
Jasmer Singh and another
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr.C.L.Premy, Advocate
for respondent No.2-complainant.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Jasmer Singh and Kuldeep Singh have filed this revision petition against State of Punjab and Karamjit Kaur under Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 09.06.2012 passed by Judge, Special Court, Rupnagar vide which charge under Section 3(i) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC has been framed.
The brief facts of the prosecution case as stated in the petition are that respondent No.2 Karamjit Kaur, Sarpanch of the village filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners could not become the Sarpanch as the seat of the Sarpanch was reserved for Schedule Gulati Vineet 2014.02.21 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.2681 of 2012 -2- Caste women and therefore, petitioner No.1 was harassing her in connivance with petitioner No.2. She made complaint to the Director Rural Development and Panchayat on 11.06.2010 that on that day petitioners entered in her house and uttered words against her caste. It is also stated that the order of framing of the charge is a non- speaking order.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that order of framing of charge is a non-speaking order and no other argument has been addressed.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the complainant.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners only argued that the order regarding framing of charge is a non-speaking order and it is not a detailed order. He has not argued any other point. Even, he has not argued that from the material on the record, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is only to see from the material available whether any prima facie case is made out or not. The Court is to see whether it is a case of some evidence or case of no evidence. The Court need not to weigh the evidence at the time of framing of charge for the purpose of conviction. As admitted, it was a complaint case and after summoning the accused, the complaint was committed to the Judge, Special Court i.e. Sessions Court. No law has been cited showing me that at the time of Gulati Vineet 2014.02.21 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.2681 of 2012 -3- framing of charge, the Court should pass a detailed and reasoned order. At the time of framing of the charge, the Court need not to discuss the facts of the case in minute details or to express any opinion on merits of the case. The Court is to determine the disputed facts or the involvement of accused only on the basis of evidence by giving reasoning and appreciating the evidence on record. At the time of framing of charge, the Court is only to see whether any prima facie case is made out or not or in other words, whether there is some evidence on the record against the accused to prima facie show commission of an offence. As already discussed, learned counsel for the revision petitioners has not argued on this point that no prima facie case is made out. He has only argued regarding non-speaking order.
In my view, no illegality has been committed by the learned lower Court while passing the order of framing of charge against the present petitioners. There is no need to pass an order by discussing minute details and the facts of the case and material on the record as this is to be proved by the prosecution by bringing cogent evidence. The Court is only to see at this stage as to whether prima facie case is made out or not.
In view of the above, the order of framing of charge passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Rupnagar is correct and as per law. Therefore, finding no merit, the present revision petition is dismissed.
(INDERJIT SINGH)
February 07, 2014 JUDGE
Vgulati
Gulati Vineet
2014.02.21 10:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh