Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Email(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2446 of 2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.97 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Crl. R.P. No. 234 of 1997)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2446 of 2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.97 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Crl. R.P. No. 234 of 1997)
Mr. Manish Sanghvi, Advocate for Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao and Mr. Gopal Prasad, Advocates for the Respondents.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 401 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 511, 451 and 354 – Charge – Framing of – Power to quash charge – Scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Court – Principles on which such revisional jurisdiction should be exercised – Whether High Court has power under its revisional jurisdiction to quash a charge which has been framed by the trial court. Held, the revisional power cannot be exercised in routine and casual manner. While exercis-ing such power, the court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner the trial and appellate courts are re-quired to do. In the instant case, it was premature for the High Court to say that the material placed before the trial court was insufficient for framing the charge or that the statement of prosecutrix herself was not sufficient to proceed further against the accused. Order having been passed against the settled posi-tion of law, therefore, unsustainable and accordingly set aside.
In the instant case, the learned judge ignored the basic princi-ples 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 trial 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. (Para 4)
As the impugned order has been passed against the settled posi-tion of law, it is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. (Para 5)
1. Leave granted.
2. 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-prose-cutrix 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.
3. We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The revision power under the Code of Criminal Proce-dure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers, the High Court has no authority to appre-ciate 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 Bengal1 (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.
4. In the instant case, the learned judge ignored the basic prin-ciples 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 trial 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.
5. 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 proceed with the trial of the case and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.
6. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
