Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 51 (0.34 seconds)Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004
25. As is clear from the aforesaid discussion, it is a fairly well-
established principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge the court
has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The trial court/ magistrate is not required to appreciate
evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not
for convicting the accused. A roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible at
the stage of framing of charge, and at the stage of considering the discharge
application. In doing so, the trial court can only look at the „record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith‟. As to what constitutes the
„record of the case and the documents submitted therewith‟, the position of
law regarding the same has been clarified by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568,
Page 20 of 35
which has thereafter been followed in a catena of decisions (see State of
Rajasthan v. Swarn Singh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5537; State v.
Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1215;
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 476;
State of M.P. v. Rakesh Mishra, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 8; M.E.
Shivalingamurthy (supra) and other similar pronouncements).
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Om Parkash Sharma vs Central Bureau Of Investigation, Delhi on 24 April, 2000
After a thorough analysis of the relevant statutory provisions (including
sections 227, 91 and 94 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 as well as section 94 of the old
Cr.P.C, 1898) and governing judicial precedents (including the landmark
pronouncement in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), along with V.K. Sasikala
v. State, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 771; Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of
Delhi), reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1; Manoj v. State of M.P., reported in
Page 27 of 35
(2023) 2 SCC 353; Om Parkash Sharma v. CBI, reported in (2000) 5 SCC
679 and other case laws), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has arrived at the
following conclusion, the relevant portion of which is quoted hereinbelow;
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 9 November, 2012
25. As is clear from the aforesaid discussion, it is a fairly well-
established principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge the court
has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The trial court/ magistrate is not required to appreciate
evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not
for convicting the accused. A roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible at
the stage of framing of charge, and at the stage of considering the discharge
application. In doing so, the trial court can only look at the „record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith‟. As to what constitutes the
„record of the case and the documents submitted therewith‟, the position of
law regarding the same has been clarified by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568,
Page 20 of 35
which has thereafter been followed in a catena of decisions (see State of
Rajasthan v. Swarn Singh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5537; State v.
Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1215;
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 476;
State of M.P. v. Rakesh Mishra, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 8; M.E.
Shivalingamurthy (supra) and other similar pronouncements).
Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2022
After a thorough analysis of the relevant statutory provisions (including
sections 227, 91 and 94 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 as well as section 94 of the old
Cr.P.C, 1898) and governing judicial precedents (including the landmark
pronouncement in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), along with V.K. Sasikala
v. State, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 771; Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of
Delhi), reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1; Manoj v. State of M.P., reported in
Page 27 of 35
(2023) 2 SCC 353; Om Parkash Sharma v. CBI, reported in (2000) 5 SCC
679 and other case laws), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has arrived at the
following conclusion, the relevant portion of which is quoted hereinbelow;