Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 491 of 2023 1 - Randhir Rai S/o Shatruhan Rai Aged About 26 Years Presently R/o House No. Mq. 255, Azad Chowk, Dipka, P.S. Dipka, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deendayal Sharma S/o Ramnaresh Sharma Aged About 47 Years Presently R/o Village Shubhash Nagar, Dipka, P.S. Dipka, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri H.P. Sharma Aged About 54 Years Presently R/o House No. 1073, Adarsh Nagar, Kusmunda, P.S. Kusmunda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Manoj Singh S/o Shiv Narayan Singh Aged About 55 Years Presently R/o M.I.G. 89, R.P. Nagar, Presently R/o Shankar Nagar, Gevra Basti, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ajak Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant :
Legal Reasoning
of Maharashtra, (2000) 3 SCC 557). Moreover, no prima facie case is made out under the SC/ST Act, as the essential ingredients, 4 including intention to insult or intimidate by reason of caste, are absent. In Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that for invoking Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the offence under IPC must be committed on the ground that the victim belongs to a SC/ST, which is not the case here. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court must evaluate the material on record to determine whether a prima facie case exists, and not act merely as a post ofÏce of the prosecution (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4; Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135; Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368; Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424). Further in the present case, the learned trial court framed charges mechanically without appreciating the evidence and documents on record or considering the broad
Arguments
Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Saurabh K. Pandey, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Korba, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 District- Korba, (C.G), in Special Case (SC/ST) No. 146/2019, whereby charges under Sections 455 read with Sections 34, 294, 323, 506(b) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Protection of Atrocities) Act, 1989, have been framed against the applicants. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the FIR regarding the incident dated 06.11.2019 was lodged on 07.11.2019, inter alia, on the allegation that on the night of 06.11.2019 at around 10:54 P.M., the applicants came near the house of the complainant, namely Uma Gopal Somkunwar, and started hitting the shutter door of the house with a lathi and rod, while abusing the complainant, including caste-based abuse. When the complainant’s sister-in-law and brother came out to see what was happening, the applicants allegedly abused them as well and pushed the sister-in-law using force. Consequently, an offence under Sections 294, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was registered against the applicants. 3. After competing the necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted and after hearing the parties on framing of charge, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.02.2023 framed the charges under Sections 455 read with Sections 34, 294, 323, 506(b) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Protection of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the applicant. Hence, this criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order 3 dated 27.02.2023 is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and therefore, liable to be set aside. He further submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted on its face value, no offence under Sections 455 r/w 34, 294, 323, 506-B of IPC or Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is made out against the applicants. It is submitted that for an offence under Section 455 IPC, there must be lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after preparation for causing hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint; however, no such preparation is evident from the entire charge sheet. Similarly, no act of causing hurt to the sister-in-law of the complainant has been established; no MLC has been filed to prove any injury, thus Section 323 IPC is not attracted. Further, no caste certificate of the complainant has been collected as required under Section 2(c) of the SC/ST Act to establish that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Rather, the caste certificate of the sister-in-law has been placed to give a colour of greater seriousness to the alleged offence. The case of the prosecution is based purely on conjectures, surmises, and appears to be politically motivated to harass the applicants and tarnish their reputation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that the protection under the SC/ST Act must not be misused as a weapon for false implication (see Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State
Decision
probabilities of the case. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Saurabh K. Pandey, learned Deputy A.G. appearing for the respondent/State supports the order impugned and submits that there is sufÏcient material available on record to prove the charge framed against the applicants. 6. In the matter of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057, it has been held that the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, the principle is reiterated that at this stage, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground 5 for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offence and only form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence and the relevant paras read as under:- “21. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufÏciency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufÏciency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has 6 framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. 22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.” 7. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, having perused the material filed by the prosecution and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, it cannot be held that the trial Court has wrongly framed the charges as aforementioned against the applicants. This Court is of the opinion that there is sufÏcient material available on record for the 7 ingredients for which, the charge has been framed against the applicants. I do not find any good ground for interference in the order framing charge passed by the trial court. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position noted above, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned for framing charges against the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the Revision, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan