Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikram Singh Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2019
1 of 3
CRR-5802-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRR-5802-2018
(VIKRAM SINGH RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 06-02-2019
Shri Imran Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, G.A. for the respondent-State.
Heard on admission.
This revision petition, under sections 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. arises out of the order dated 26/10/18 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District Morena in S.T. No.345/18, whereby the trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC and sections 25(1B)(a), 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner has been charged with the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC and sections 25(1B)(a) & 27 of the Arms Act in relation to the offence dated 7/3/18, wherein it is alleged that petitioner had fired through his country made pistol, with an intention to cause death of complainant Banti alias Mukesh, causing injuries to him. Thereafter, the petitioner along with his two accomplices fled from the spot on his Motorcycle.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of false implication. There is no material on record to show that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Hence, an application was moved by the petitioner under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. It is submitted that in the order impugned, neither any reasons have been given for rejecting the application under section 227 of the Cr.P.C., nor the trial Court has formally recorded its rejection, but proceeded straight to frame charges. It is submitted that the said approach of the trial Court reflects complete non-application of mind. Indeed, the application under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. still remains pending and cannot be said to be decided. Moreover, no reply was filed to the said application. The order passed by the trial Court is cryptic and a non speaking one, hence the same deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that there is no evidence at all against the petitioner and no prima facie case for framing charges.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has vehemently 2 of 3 CRR-5802-2018 argued that there is no defect in the order passed by the trial Court and the same cannot be deemed to be bad only on the ground that the trial Court has not discussed the material against the accused. He further submitted that at the stage of framing charges, the Court below has to only see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not and no reasons are required to be recorded. If the trial Court comes to the conclusion that it is a case of discharge, then certainly reasons have to be recorded. However, in the present case, the trial Court after considering the material on record, and after granting opportunity of hearing to the parties as well as their counsel, came to the conclusion that prima facie there was enough material to frame charges. As such, the petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
6. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned trial Court has considered the material on record, as well as, granted hearing to both the parties on the application under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the trial Court has come to the conclusion of framing charge against the petitioner. It is well settled that at the time of framing charge, only broad probabilities of the case and prima facie case are required to be seen and a meticulous consideration of evidence is not required. At this stage, the trial Court has limited power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not prima facie case is made out against the accused. The said position of law was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of W.B. ((2000)1 SCC 722), wherein it has been held as under:-
"8. We wish to point out that if the trial Court decides to frame a charge there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the trial Judge has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned."
The case of Kanti Bhadra Shah (Supra) was referred to by another two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs State of Bihar ((2007)1 SCC 49), wherein in paragraph 15 it has been held - "...the moment the order of discharge is passed it is imperative to record the reasons. But for framing 3 of 3 CRR-5802-2018 of charge, the Court is required to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. In case of discharge of the accused the use of expression "reasons" has been inserted in Sections 227, 239 and 245 of the Code. At the stage of framing of charge, the expression used is "opinion". The reason is obvious. If the reasons are recorded in case of framing of charge, there is likelihood of prejudicing the case of the accused put on trial".
7. The judgment in the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah (Supra) has further been quoted with approval in Nupur Talwar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ((2012)11 SCC 465).
8. From the above, it is clear that the trial Court is only bound to record its reasons if it discharges the accused. But where, the trial Court frames charges after forming an opinion about the existence of a case, no reasons are to be given by the trial Court.
9. In the case in hand, the trial Court has proceeded to frame charges after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties, as well as, their counsel on the application under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and recorded its satisfaction to frame charges under the offences as indicated above. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, no illegality or perversity is reflected from the order impugned and it cannot be said that the application under section 227 is not rejected or is still pending.
The petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (and) ANAND SHRIVASTAVA 2019.02.08 16:28:28 +05'30'