Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' In ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Another on 22 November, 2022
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.792 of 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), by the petitioners, who are the accused/A-2 to A-4 in C.C.No.251 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-XIII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District, feeling aggrieved by the proceedings dated 25.06.2019 whereby the learned Magistrate framed charges against them.
2. The petitioners herein are the accused/A-2 to A-4 whereas the 2nd respondent herein is the complainant in C.C.No.251 of 2019.
3. The complaint given by the 2 nd respondent was registered as a case in Crime No.20 of 2019 of Veerullapadu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners/A2 to A-4 and the accused/A-1. The police after due investigation filed charge sheet and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same against the petitioners and A-1 for the said offences and the same was numbered as C.C.No.25 of 2019. Pursuant to the summons, the 2 petitioners and A-1 appeared before the Court below on 25.06.2019 and they were furnished copies of the documents relied on by the prosecution and on the same day itself charges were framed against them for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred this Criminal Revision Case contending that the Court below did not give them breathing time in between compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framing charges under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and no opportunity was provided to them to peruse the charge sheet and other material and in a hurried way framed the charges.
5. Heard Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioners/ A-2 to A-4, Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant.
6. Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 to A-4, in elaboration, would submit that the Court below furnished the documents and framed the charges at a time and thus the petitioners have not been given any opportunity to go through the contents of the documents relied on by the prosecution and further their counsel was 3 also not present on that date as he was under the impression that the case would be adjourned to another date for hearing on charges. Hence, the petitioners were denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to effectively defend their case and to file discharge petition. It is further contended that sections 239 and 240 of CrPC in specific terms say that the Court shall hear the parties apart from considering the report and documents sent with it before arriving at the conclusion of discharging the accused or of framing a charge against the accused. Sections 239 and 240 CrPC mandates the Court below to examine the accused and hear the prosecution as well as the accused and then arrive at conclusion as to whether the material placed before him would furnish a reasonable basis for the accusation. However, the impugned orders clearly show that the Court below failed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the accused, which is an essential requirement, and in a hurried manner framed the charge. Hence, prayed to set aside the charges framed against the petitioners. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decisions in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another 1, 1 . (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667 4 Swapnil and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh2 and Prithvi Nath vs. R.C. Kaul3.
7. The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the learned trial Judge, upon considering the police report and other documents, having satisfied that there is a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners has framed the charges and thus there are no grounds to interfere with framing of charges by the court below, since it does not suffer from either procedural irregularity or infirmity. It is further contended that no detailed evaluation of materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at the stage of framing charges and the consideration at this stage is only to see whether the allegation/charge is groundless. It is further contended that revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of record and unless there is grave error of law or procedure it cannot interfere with the orders impugned while exercising revisional jurisdiction. It is further contended that, at this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter. Thus the Court below, upon 2 . (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 567 3 . 1974 SCC OnLine J&K 28 5 perusing the material available on record having found sufficient material to frame charge has framed charges against the accused and the same does not deserve any interference of this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. In support of his contentions, he relied on Kanti Bhadra Shah and another vs. State of West Bengal4, Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others5 and State through Deputy Superintendent of Police vs. R.Soundirarasu etc.6.
8. Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- complainant, would submit that the Court below having found that the material placed before him furnished a reasonable foundation for the accusation against the accused has framed charges and mere disclosure of grave suspicion against the accused would be sufficient to frame charges against the accused and at this stage roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence is not necessary. There are no grounds to interfere with the same, hence, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on Superintendent and 4 . (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 722 5 . 2022 SCC OnLine SC 913 6 . 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 741 6 Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others7, Mohd. Akbar Dar and others v. State of J. and K. and others8, K.Neelaveni vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and others9, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another10 and State of Hyderabad vs. Rodda Vasudeva Reddy 11.
9. The purpose of framing a charge is to intimate to the accused the clear, unambiguous and precise nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of trial. Chapter XIX deals with provisions for trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report. Sections 239 and 240 CrPC reads thus:
239. When accused shall be discharged.--If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.
240. Framing of charge.--(1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.7
. AIR 1980 Supreme Court 52 8 . AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1548 9 . 2010 LawSuit(SC) 116 10 . AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366 11 . 2006 LawSuit(AP) 1334 7 (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
10. The above sections make it clear that the trial Court must afford an opportunity of being heard to the accused and if it finds the material on record to be groundless the accused shall be discharged and if it is of the opinion that the material placed on record is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed the offence then it shall frame a charge.
11. The observations made in the decisions relied on by both the learned counsel would go to show that for framing charges, the courts must consider the police report and all the documents furnished by the police and if there is need has to examine the accused, hear the arguments of both the prosecution and the accused and then arrive at his conclusion, independently and uninfluenced by the police opinion, whether the material placed before him, if accepted at its face value, would furnish a reasonable basis or foundation for the accusation. At this stage, the probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the material would not warrant a conviction. The Court cannot go in to the details or the pros and cons of the matter and it is always a matter of 8 trial. There is no legal requirement that the trial Court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge. No detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of possible defences need be undertaken at this stage and the only consideration at the stage of Section 239/240 CrPC is as to whether the allegation/charge is groundless.
12. Keeping in view the settled principles of law regarding framing of charges and also the language employed in sections 239 and 240 of CrPC, the facts of the case are to be scanned.
13. A perusal of the grounds raised in the criminal revision case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners would make it clear that the prime grievance of the petitioners is that they were not given sufficient time to understand the contents of the documents relied on by the prosecution and that they were not afforded any opportunity of being heard before framing charges against them and further they were denied the opportunity of filing discharge petition.
14. The order impugned in this Criminal Revision Case is dated 25.06.2019. For clarity, the same is extracted hereunder: 9
"Sri D.A filed memo of appearance for A-3 and A-4. A-1 to A-4 present. Copies of documents furnished. For examination. Accused 1 to 4 present and examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. explaining the accusation levelled against them. Basing on the material available on record, this Court framed charges for the offences under section 498A of IPC, Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act. The said charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu. After having understood the same, they denied the charges. Pleaded not guilty and preferred trial. Issue summons to LW1 to LW3."
15. A plain reading of the impugned order clearly shows that soon after furnishing the documents relied on by the prosecution, charges were framed and more over the accused were not heard before framing charges as mandated under Section 239 CrPC.
16. It is relevant here to note that an accused has a right to fair trial. Under our Constitution, the right to get a fair trial is a basic fundamental/human right (Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By LRs. v. B.D. Agarwal and Others [(2003) 6 SCC 230]). He has a right to defend himself as a part of his human as also fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Fair trial includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove his/her innocence.
17. In the case on hand, the opportunity of being heard was not extended to the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 before framing charges as envisaged under Section 239 CrPC. Thus, framing of charges is not in consonance with sections 239/240 CrPC and it amounts to a clear 10 violation of intention of the legislature. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
18. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the 161(3) CrPC statements of the witnesses and contended that there is no material whatsoever available against the petitioners/accused to proceed against them; in view of the nature of the relief sought in this Criminal Revision Case and further in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners may be afforded a reasonable opportunity to file petition under Section 239 CrPC before the Court below seeking their discharge, this Court feels it unnecessary to go deep into the merits of the case except to hold that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the contentions touching the merits of the case in the discharge petition.
19. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2019 passed in C.C.No.251 of 2019 by the Court below so far as it relates to framing of charges against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4. The Court below is directed to afford fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as envisaged under Section 239 CrPC before framing of 11 charges under Section 240 CrPC and dispose of the said C.C. as expeditiously as possible.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, shall stand closed. Interim Orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
_______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date :22.11.2022 RR 12 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.792 of 2019 Date : 22.11.2022 RR