Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1323 of 2023 Rohit Sharma S/o Late Shivram Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Maharani Hospital, Beside Nirmal Medical Store, Pratap Deo Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Bastar. Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with For Respondent/State :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, (C.G), in Sessions Case No. 105/2021, whereby charges under Sections 306, 294, 323 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), has been framed against the applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the 2 deceased used to run a betel shop in front of the house of the applicant. It is alleged that on 24.01.2021, the deceased Sanjeev Kumar Singh parked his vehicle in front of the applicant’s house, due to which the applicant and his sister allegedly abused the deceased. It is further alleged that the applicant assaulted the deceased and threatened to close down his shop. Thereafter, on 25.01.2021, Sanjeev Kumar Singh allegedly sprinkled petrol over himself and attempted to commit suicide. However, persons present at the spot, namely Sanju Lal and others, with the help of blankets and water, extinguished the fire and took Sanjeev Kumar Singh to the hospital. Subsequently, on 28.01.2021, a complaint regarding the said incident was lodged, and FIR No. 40/2021 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bastar at Jagdalpur under Sections 323, 294, 506, and 34 of the IPC against the applicant and his sister. Later, on 31.01.2021, Sanjeev Kumar Singh succumbed to his injuries, and accordingly, on 01.02.2021, the offence under Section 306 IPC was added. 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 24.11.2023 framed the charges under Sections 306, 294, 323 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant. Hence, this criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 24.11.2023 is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and therefore, liable to be set aside. It has been argued by the learned counsel for 3 the applicant that the applicant, along with his sister (who is a doctor), had filed CRMP No. 1471 of 2023 for quashing of the proceedings. The said petition was heard by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 21.05.2023. So far as the applicant is concerned, who was applicant no. 2 in the said CRMP, he had withdrawn his petition with liberty to take recourse to law as available. However, the proceedings against the applicant’s sister, applicant no. 1, Dr. Megha Sharma were quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court. A copy of the said order has been annexed. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for discharge, but the same was rejected as charges had already been framed. Learned counsel submits that the deceased, who was running a betel shop in front of the applicant’s house, used to keep an evil eye on the applicant’s sister and used to tease her. The applicant’s sister being a doctor was subjected to such harassment not only by the deceased but also in the company of other boys who would loiter around. Aggrieved by this behaviour, the applicant had also lodged complaints before the police authorities. Unfortunately, the deceased committed suicide in his shop by sprinkling petrol on himself. A suicide note is said to have been left behind by the deceased, a copy of which has been annexed along with a covering memo. The said suicide note mentions the names of the applicant and his sister. It is on the basis of this suicide note that charges have been framed against the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the FIR itself, the complainant has disclosed that due to the lockdown, the 4 deceased was facing financial difÏculties, which could also have been the reason for him to commit suicide. Though it is alleged that there was abuse, threat, and hurt caused to the deceased, no complaint regarding the said incident was made by Sanjeev Kumar Singh himself. Furthermore, after the incident of 25.01.2021, when Sanjeev Kumar Singh attempted suicide by sprinkling petrol on himself and survived until 31.01.2021, no statement was recorded from him indicating that the applicant had committed any such act leading to his suicide. While framing charges, there must be sufÏcient material to constitute the alleged offences, but in this case, no such material exists to justify the framing of charges under the said sections. Therefore, the framing of charges by the trial court is contrary to the record and settled law. Further for constituting an offence under Section 294 IPC, it is mandatory for the prosecution to disclose that abusive words were uttered in a public place, but no such explanation or disclosure has been made in the present case. Therefore, no offence under Section 294 IPC can be said to have been made out against the applicant, and the framing of charges under this section is contrary to law. He also submits that if the order framing charge is tested on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.C. Cheema v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2001) 4 SCC 577, and M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the order suffers from illegality, material irregularity, and lack of propriety. The entire exercise of examining as many as forty-one witnesses would result only in wastage of the precious time of the Court, as ultimately the 5 evidence would not sustain the charges, leading to the acquittal of the applicant. The learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the evidence and documents placed before it in its correct perspective.
Decision
Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer 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 applicant. 7. 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 sufÏciency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the 6 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 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 7 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.” 8. 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 8 that the trial Court has wrongly framed the charges as aforementioned against the applicant. This Court is of the opinion that there is sufÏcient material available on record for the ingredients for which, the charge has been framed against the applicant. I do not find any good ground for interference in the order framing charge passed by the trial court. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the Revision, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 12. 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