Munna Devi
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr [2001] Insc 597 (6 November 2001)
M.B.
Shah & R.P. Sethi Sethi,J.
Leave
granted.
Aggrieved
by the framing of charges against him under Sections 376, 511, 451 and 354 of
the Indian Penal Code, the respondent-accused filed a revision petition in the
High Court which was allowed vide the order impugned in this appeal by quashing
the charges framed against him. The appellant-complainant-prosecutrix has filed
this appeal submitting that the impugned order is against the provisions of law
as the High Court could not prevent the holding of trial by sitting in appeal
against the order of framing of charge by sifting and weighing the evidence
recorded during the investigation.
We
find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The revision
power under the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and
casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to
appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are
required to do.
Revisional
powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar
against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or
the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at
the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for
which the accused has been charged. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Saha & Anr. v.
State of West Bengal [2000 (1) SCC 722] has held that
there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or
lengthy order for framing the charges.
In the
instant case the learned Judge ignored the basic principles which conferred the
jurisdiction upon the High Court for exercise of revisional powers. It was
premature for the High Court to say that the material placed before the trail
court was insufficient for framing the charge or that the statement of the prosecutrix
herself was not sufficient to proceed further against the accused-respondent.
As the
impugned order has been passed against the settled position of law, it is
unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The order of framing the charge
passed by the trial court against the accused is upheld with directions to it
to proceed with the trial of the case and dispose of the same on merits in
accordance with law.
...........................J.
(M.B.
SHAH) ...........................J.
Back
