Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Nathu Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 29 March, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 217/2012 NATHU RAM & OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER. DATE OF ORDER : 29.03.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II Mr. Ajay Gupta, for the accused-petitioners. Mr. Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor, for Respondent No. 1-State. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, for Respondent No. 2-complainant. BY THE COURT:
Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1-State and learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-complainant.
2. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 109/2011, whereby learned Trial Court has framed charges against accused-petitioners under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 and 120-B IPC and against accused Satpal under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 and 376; against accused Rajodevi under Sections 420, 120-B IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is against the law as well as material available on record; the learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, did not consider the material available on record and further failed to look into the law for framing the charges. The petitioners have been falsely implicated by the investigating agency in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners never asked the complainant or her father for dowry, but even then, learned Trial Court passed the impugned order. The learned Trial Court has overlooked the facts and circumstances of the present case and passed the impugned order, which is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1-State as well as learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-complainant defended the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted that the same is just, proper and as per the evidence available on record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-complainant and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds that learned Trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the accused-petitioners under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 and 120-B IPC. Learned Trial Court appears to have committed no error in framing the charges against the accused-petitioners on the basis of material available before it. It is settled law that at the stage of framing charges, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the material produced by the prosecution is sufficient or not for conviction of the accused. If the Court is satisfied that prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then charges have to be framed against the accused. The Court has to see that if there are grounds for prima facie believing that the accused has committed offence, then the Court should frame charge against the accused.
6. In the present case, sufficient evidence is available on record which suggests that the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 and 120-B IPC are made out against the petitioners and further that there are grounds for reasonably believing that the accused-petitioners have committed the alleged offences. The impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court seems to be perfectly just, legal, proper, based on cogent and sound reasoning and this Court finds no error, illegality or perversity in the same, which calls for any interference by this Court.
7. There is no force in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. Stay application also stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II),J.
Manoj, S.No. 31.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
MANOJ NARWANI JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT.