Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: kanti bhadra shah in Vikram Singh Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2019Matching Fragments
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:-
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.