Brig. (Retd.) Jitender Kumar Narang v. Union of India

: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Ajeet Saklani, Standing Counsel. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge Ms. Shardha Karol learned counsel, for the petitioners, submitted that even though the petitioners have taken various pleas in the present petition, however, she is confining her arguments to the submission noticed by this Court in its order dated 16.09.2024 that prima-facie, there is 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:16373 ) insufficient material to conclude that the learned Judge had gone through the material placed on record. The order framing the charges mentions that the learned Special Judge had gone through the police report under Section 173 of Cr.PC, which is not correct because no report was filed under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. Further, the charges framed by the Court are not proper as they do not conform to the requirement laid down under Sections 211 to 213 of Cr. P.C. She prayed that the order passed by learned Trial Court framing the charges be set aside and the matter be remitted to it to hear the parties afresh and pass a fresh order as per the law. She relied upon the judgments of the Court in Tara Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. (1991) Cri. LJ 3339, Rajesh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor [2017(1) RLW 604 (Raj.)], Manjeet @ Manjay Vs. The State NCT of Delhi [Cr. Rev.. P.388/24], decided on 19.03.2024, Neha Khurana Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2019 SCC Online P&H 2996, Sri Shashi Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, Writ Petition No.16851 of 2022, decided on 14.09.2022, in support of her submission.

#2. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. Ajeet Saklani, learned Standing Counsel, 3 ( 2025:HHC:16373 ) for the respondent-ED, submitted that the Court is not required to pass a detailed order while framing the charges. The fact that the charge has been framed by itself shows the application of mind by the Court. Any clerical error in the charge will not invalidate the trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. He relied upon the judgment of M. Venkatesan Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement, Crl. OP No.7578 of 2023, decided on 25.11.2024, in support of his submission.

#3. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

#4. The learned Special Judge passed the following order on 03.08.2024:- “03.08.2024 Present: Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Ld. Special PP for the complainant. Accused J.K. Narang in person with Ms. Ananya Sharma, Advocate. Accused Mini Narang in person with Sh. Atul Jhingan, Advocate. Accused Sumant Narang in person with Sh.Harish Sharma, Advocate. Accused Kulbir Singh Dhaliwal in person with Sh. Deepak Thakur, Advocate. Heard. 4 ( 2025:HHC:16373 ) Ld. PP opened the case, describing the material/evidence collected to establish the charge against the accused. After going through all conclusions of investigation recorded in police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., statements of the witnesses and other documents annexed therewith and after hearing Ld. Special PP, ld. defence counsel, I am of the opinion that prima-facie there are grounds to presume that all the accused persons committed offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Let charge be framed. Accordingly charge framed. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. Now, to come up for fixation of prosecution evidence on

31.08.2024. (Sd/-) Special Judge, Shimla, H.P.”

#5. This Court, while dealing with a similar order passed by the learned Trial Court, held in Tara Dutt v. State of H.P., 1991 SCC OnLine HP 15: 1991 Cri LJ 3339 that the order framing the charges should not be cryptic and should reflect application of mind. It was observed at page 3348: - “42. Both under Ss. 228 and 240 Cr. P.C., the accused person has a right to be heard before the trial Court forms an opinion that there is ground for presuming that he has committed an offence. This right, coupled with the fact that the trial court has to consider the record of the case and the evidence brought by the prosecution on it till then, does suggest that the attention of the Court should, at that stage, be attracted to the material for and against the accused even for the opinion that the material disclosed grave suspicion that the accused person has committed an offence. The trial court should, therefore, pass a speaking order in the sense that it should appear to a court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over it that the 5 ( 2025:HHC:16373 ) trial court was alive to the material for and against the accused existing on the record of the case till that stage. The order should not be cryptic or laconic or a bald one merely saying that “there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence”. Such an order, by itself, cannot be characterised as disclosing application of mind by the Court but where the order ex| facie, or read with some earlier order made the trial court, can reasonably lead to an inference that the trial court was alive to the material which was relevant, the order would be unexceptionable and would not call for interference only on the ground that it does not specifically refer to each and every piece of evidence incriminating the accused persons which had been placed on the record of the case for the consideration of the Court till that stage.”

#6. A similar view was in Rajesh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 9546: (2017) 1 RLW 604: (2017) 1 WLC 775, wherein it was observed at page 605: - “6. Even though the articles of charges do contain the precise allegation against the accused, but the order framing charge is completely silent thereabout. It is indeed necessary for any judicial court to disclose its mind by written words as to why it has decided to pass the order in the way it has done. Reasons are the hallmark of any judicial discourse. Reasons are necessary not only for the litigant to know as to why the order has been passed against or in his favour, but also for the superior courts to appreciate the order if and when it is challenged in appeal/revision. The learned trial court in the impugned order in one para running hardly into six lines, not only took the cognizance against the accused, but also decided to frame a charge against him for offences 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. Neither the facts of the case have been noticed, nor any reasons have been given therein.” 6 ( 2025:HHC:16373 ) `7. Delhi High Court also held in Manjeet vs. The State NCT of Delhi (19.03.2024 - DEOR): MANU/DEOR/100549/2024 that the Court was required to evaluate the material to determine the prima facie view. It was observed: - “7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court is in agreement with the counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned order is non-speaking and cryptic. It is no longer res integra that at the stage of framing of charges under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C., Court is required to consider whether there is sufficient material on record to frame the charges. While doing so, Court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused. The test to determine prima facie case will differ from case to case. If the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, the Court will be justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. No roving inquiry can be done into the pros and cons of the matter and the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted. Court is not to consider whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or the trial is sure to end in conviction. These are the observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan Bansal and Others, (2020) 2 SCC 290 and relevant passages are as follows:- 'I. Scope of Sections 227 and 228 CrPC 39. The court while considering the question of framing charges under Section 227 CrPC has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. If the material placed before the 7 ( 2025:HHC:16373 ) court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges. The court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 where it has been held that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 or 228 CrPC, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence, then the court should proceed with the trial.

#40. In a recent judgment delivered in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 decided on 24-4-2019, this Court has laid down the law relating to framing of charges and discharge, and held that all that is required is that the court must be satisfied with the material available, that a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion is sufficient for framing charges, which must be founded on some material. The material must be such which can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged at this stage, nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused at the stage of framing charges. The court is not to consider whether there is sufficient ground 8 ( 2025:HHC:16373 ) for conviction of the accused, or whether the trial is sure to end in the conviction."

#8. From a conjoint reading of the two passages from the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is clear that while the Court is not to go into the probative value of the evidence brought on record at the stage of framing of charges, as if it is determining whether there is sufficient ground for conviction, but at the same time the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record to arrive at a prima facie view that the facts emerging from the material on record, taken at their face value, disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The suspicion must be 'grave suspicion' founded on the material on record. It needs no reiteration that framing of charges is an important step and stage in a trial. Depending on the material on record and the arguments addressed by the State and the accused, the Court decides the charges to be framed, if any, and thus further course of the trial is determined and chartered. Therefore, it is imperative that the order by which the Trial Court frames the charge(s) must indicate what material was sufficient at that stage to arrive at a finding, albeit prima facie, of strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence. Similar is the judgment in Shashikumar (supra) Therefore, it is apparent from the above judgments

#9. that the order passed by the learned Trial Court should show the application of mind. In the present case, admittedly, no police report was submitted under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. and the Enforcement Directorate had filed a complaint under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (“in short 9 ( 2025:HHC:16373 ) PMLA Act”), 2002. Therefore, the order does not show that the learned Special Judge had gone through the record and that is why he had mentioned the police report instead of the complaint filed under Section 45 (1) of the PMLA, 2002.

#10. The charge framed by learned Special Judge is also defective in asmuchas it mentions that the proceeds of the crime were invested into financial system and the offence under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002, punishable under Section 4 of the Act was committed. It was not mentioned that the proceeds of the crime were invested by projecting it as untainted property which is the essential requirement of Section 3 of PMLA, 2002. Learned Special Judge had not used the term money laundering in the charge so framed, so as to bring it under the provisions of Section 214 of Cr. P.C.

#11. Consequently, the order dated 03.08.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge (PMLA), Shimla, cannot be sustained. Hence, the same is set aside.

#12. The matter is remitted to the learned Special Judge, Shimla who shall hear the parties and shall pass a fresh order regarding the framing of charge/discharge of the accused. 10 ( 2025:HHC:16373 ) Needless to say, that the parties shall cooperate with the learned Trial Court, and it will be permissible for the learned Trial Court to lay down the timeline for concluding the arguments or the desirability of filing the written arguments, if deemed proper.

#13. The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to remain present before the learned Trial Court on

19.06.2025.

#14. A copy of this judgment, along with the record of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. 28th May 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez) (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge