OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- CRM(M) No. 41/2022 v. Deepak Gupta” & Ors.

Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 13.10.2023 (ORAL)

In the instant petition the petitioners have invoked the inherent power of this Court enshrined in Section 482 Cr.P.C. for 2 CRM(M) No. 41/2022 quashment of order dated 14.12.2021 (for short, ‘the impugned order’), passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) in case titled as “UT of J&K through Police Station Rajbagh Vs Deepak Gupta and others.”

The facts emanating from the petition would reveal that on

15.09.2021 a Police party of Police Station Rajbagh, Kathua, headed by HC Raghubir Singh, stopped a vehicle (Breeza Car) bearing Registration No. JK08H-5000 coming from Jammu towards Kathua and during the search of car found one Khakhi coloured box kept inside therein at the foot space adjoining to the seat of the driver containing 24 bottles of Cirex 100 ml each (Narcotic drug) and upon the failure of the occupants of the car/petitioners herein to give any satisfactory reply qua the said drugs, came to be arrested and an FIR No.186/2021 registered with the Police Station Rajbagh, Kathua against the petitioners herein for commission of offences under Sections 8/21/22/29 NPDS Act and consequently investigation set into motion.

Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be laid before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua whereupon same came to be transferred to the Trial Court.

The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order after hearing the appearing counsel for the parties passed the impugned 3 CRM(M) No. 41/2022 order, framing charge against the petitioners herein for commission of offences covered in the FIR. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The fundamental ground urged in the petition by the petitioners herein against the impugned order is that there was no material on record of the charge-sheet in support of the accusations levelled against the petitioners herein and thus the Trial Court misdirected itself while framing charge against the petitioners herein in terms of the impugned order.

It is the settled position of law that at the time of framing of charge the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging from that material taken on their face value disclose the existence of the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and for that limited purpose, the Court can sift the evidence. The expression “sufficient grounds” appearing in Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (1933 A.D.) has been held not to mean the same thing as to the recording of a finding of guilt at the conclusion of the trial, but the interpretation of the term “sufficient grounds” has been held by the Courts to be harmonized 4 CRM(M) No. 41/2022 with the term “a ground” for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. It has also been the consistent view of the Court that where a ground exists which suggests that an offence was committed, charge has to be framed and that even a suspicion found on material by a Court is sufficient to frame the charge, though, for the said purpose of framing of charge application of mind by the Court is mandatory.

Keeping in mind the aforesaid position and principles of law and reverting back to the case in hand, it emerges that the Trial Court has been alive not only to the aforesaid position and principles of law but also conscious of each of the circumstances emerging from the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution, in particular, that the Narcotic drugs were found to be in the custody of the accused persons/petitioners herein travelling in one private vehicle from same point to the same destination and being known to each other. A careful perusal of the impugned order thus would suggest that the same has been passed by the Trial Court rightly and no fault whatsoever is forthcoming therefrom to have been committed by the Trial Court in this regard.

Viewed thus, what has been observed hereinabove, the impugned order dated 14.12.2021 does not call for any interference, more so, in exercise of the inherent power vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which power is to be exercised in rare 5 CRM(M) No. 41/2022 cases, being neither a revisional nor an appellate power of this Court. Resultantly the petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE JAMMU 13.10.2023 Muneesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes