Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Police Station Bhatapara Town
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24678 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 872 of 2019 Vimal Kurre S/o Late Tarachand Kurre Aged About 52 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara Town, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Police Station Bhatapara Town, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
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 applicant, it cannot be held that 6 the trial Court has wrongly framed the charge as aforementioned against the applicant. This Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient material available on record for the ingredients for which, the charge has been framed against the applicant. 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 charge 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 transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar
Arguments
: Mr. Sudhir Sahu, Advocate RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.06.2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. H- 10/2019, whereby charges under Sections 376(1), 354, 452 and 506-II of the IPC has been framed against the applicant. The applicant, being dissatisfied with the said order, has preferred this petition seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that an FIR was lodged on 2 dated 16.02.2019 by the Police by filing a written complaint alleging that when the victim was taking bath at her home, the applicant entered the house of the victim and the applicant has tried to outage the modesty of the victim and the details of the alleged facts were mentioned in her written complaint. After the completion of entire investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court, and the trial Court framed the charges under Section 452, 324, 506-II and 376(1) of IPC by the impugned order dated 07.06.2019 has been framed against the present applicant. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that order dated 07.06.2019 is illegal, contrary and against the provision of law, hence liable to be set-aside. It is further submitted that there was earlier dispute between the parties, for which the victim has threatened the applicant to falsely implicate in the criminal case. The falsity of the case prepared against the applicant could be evident from the fact that statement has been recorded of one Alok Anand stating that the applicant asked the location of house of applicant's own elder brother and it is very unnatural that the applicant, who is residing half KM away from the alleged place of incident, where his elder brother was residing, does not know the address of his elder brother. In fact, there was no such incident taken place and the real fact is that the elder brother of applicant was trying to sell the house, where the applicant's elder brother and complainant were residing 3 and the applicant's mother asked the applicant to accompany her to convinced the elder brother of applicant namely Kamal Kumar Kurre not to sale the house and when the applicant accompanied her mother, Kamal Kumar Kurre was absent and the complainant started quarreling with the mother of applicant and the applicant asked Shushila Kurre not to quarrel with his mother, Shushila Kurre with a preplan manner, has lodged the written complaint to the Police on 16.02.2019 in conneivance with the authority of the Police Department to register the FIR only on Saturday and the applicant was arrested on 17.02.2019 (Sunday), so that the applicant being Government Servant would be in custody for 48 hrs, which could be a ground of his suspension from the Government Job. Fortunately, the applicant got bail on the said date i.e. on 17.02.2019 and when Shushila Kurre could not succeed her plan to sent the applicant behind the bar for more than 48 hrs, Shushila Kurre generated new story by making statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC Bhatapara, alleging that the applicant has committed rape upon her. It is very unnatural that the applicant who is residing half KM away from his elder brother, is not knowing the address of his elder brother and is require to ask the address of his elder brother. Hence, the impugned order of the trial Court framing charges under Sections 376(1), 354, 452 and 506-II of the IPC, against the applicants, is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State supports the order impugned and further submits the FIR was initially registered for the offence under Section 376(1), 4 354, 452 and 506-II of the IPC. However, after completion of entire investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Section 376(1), 354, 452 and 506-II of the IPC. It was also revealed that when the victim was taking bath at her home, the applicant entered the house of the victim and the applicant has tried to outage the modesty of the victim, and further there is sufficient material available on record to prove the charge framed against the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 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 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 sufficiency 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 sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of 5 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 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.