The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 340 of 2022 Bhrungaraj Singh & Anr. …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mr. D. R. Parida, Adv. Mr. Ch. S. Mishra, A.G.A. Mr. A. K. Rout, Adv. (for O.P. 2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-08.11.2023 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -22.12.2023 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner through this Writ Petition has challenged the order dated 05.07.2022 framing of charge under Section 498(A)/324/506/34 of IPC and 494/495/109 R/W 376(2)(f) of IPC and rejecting the discharge petition under Section 227 CrPC filed by the petitioners vide order dated 24.06.2022 passed in C.T Case No. 02(A) of 2021 arising out Rengali PS Case No. 158 of 2020 against the present Petitioners by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Feb-2024 16:12:18 Page 1 of 7 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 11.04.2026, the victim’s marriage was solemnized with the present petitioner no. 1. After one day of marriage, the husband left the in-laws house and went to Delhi to his working place but after one month of her marriage she accompanied her in-laws family and brother-in-law namely Balabhadra Singh to the working place of his husband at Delhi. Thereafter, after arrival to her husband residence, she came to know that her husband was not staying there but rather only went there occasionally. 3. It is further alleged that the informant came to know that her husband was keeping another lady, petitioner no.2, and she threatened and pressurizing the victim to have a relationship with his younger brother, due to which the informant became pregnant. Subsequently, she was administered medicines by her in-laws which led to her miscarriage. Consequently, the informant filed an FIR. II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner(s) earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: 5. In view of the fact that the prosecution report did not disclose that the Petitioners is, prima facie, involved in the commission of offences for which the charges framed against them is liable to be set aside by exercising revisional powers of this court.
Decision
6. The impugned order is erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of law since the jurisdiction of a judicial court to pass orders has to be in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Feb-2024 16:12:18 Page 2 of 7 consonance with the powers vested in him by the procedural laws. As the prosecution report does not disclose any offence having been committed by Petitioners, he is not liable to be proceeded against. 7. Mere suspicion cannot be a ground for framing charge of offences in the absence of any prima facie material to show that Petitioners was in any way liable agaisnt the purported allegations. The impugned order of the court below being grossly unjust, having been made without considering the ratios laid down in various decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court and the provisions of the revisional jurisdiction is liable to be set aside with. 8. The prosecution has itself admitted that there was delay of 4 years in lodging FIR and on the initial stage, the alleged occurrence took place at Delhi but the case was registered at Rengali PS under Jharsuguda Dist. The victim did not feel the necessity to intimate the fact before the Delhi police where the incident allegedly took place; the learned court of Addl. Sessions Judge while examine the prosecution story and statement of the witnesses had to see every part and corner the prosecution so that there exist no latches in the order of framing charges without application of mind in the ends of justice. 9. The court below ought to have framed charges after going through all the materials available in case records. However, the court, without going through the material contradictions present in the case of the prosecution, affirmed the offences mentioned in the charge sheet submitted by the prosecution which is grossly illegal. This court has to examine the charges to be framed in separate offences as per specific Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Feb-2024 16:12:18 Page 3 of 7 role played by the petitioners in the present crime. However, without application of mind, the learned trial court rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners which is illegal and unjustified have to set aside the order in the interest of justice. 10. Without proper examining the statements of witnesses and documents submitted by the prosecution no conclusion can be based under Sections 498(A)/376(2)(f)/506/109/34 of IPC and as such it would be a travesty of justice to compel the accused persons to face a criminal trial without any materials on record for which the order dated 05.07.2022 vide C.T Sessions case No. 02(A)/2021 passed by the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda may kindly be set aside. III. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 11. It is well settled legal position that, at the stage of framing charge for an offence against an accused, only prima facie case of the prosecution has to be taken into account into affirming whether sufficient grounds are available on record to proceed against him and even strong suspicion is enough to frame charge and at this stage of the proceedings evidence is not required to be analyzed, as it is required to be done at the final stage after trial. 12. In Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P.,1 the Apex Court held as follows:- “While framing charges/ court is required to evaluate materials and documents on record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go Signature Not Verified 1 (2013) 11 SCC 476 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Feb-2024 16:12:18 Page 4 of 7 deep into the probative value of materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that accused had committed an offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict accused. Even if there is a grave suspicion against the accused and it is not properly explained or court feels that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charges against the accused is justified. It is only for conviction of accused that materials must indicate that accused had committed offence but for framing of charges if materials indicate that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charge is proper. Materials brought on by prosecution must be believed to be true and their probative value cannot be decided at this stage. The court should not act as mouthpiece of prosecution and it is impermissible to have roving enquiry at the stage of framing of charge.” 13. The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu,2 while dealing with the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C when the charges had been framed, held:- “The scope of interference under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 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 Signature Not Verified 2 AIR 2017 SC 796. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Feb-2024 16:12:18 Page 5 of 7 consonance with Procedure.” scheme of Code of Criminal 14. Additionally, quashing of a charge is an exception to the Rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. 15. Thus, it is well settled legal position that at the stage of framing charge for an offence against an accused only prima facie has to be seen whether sufficient grounds are available on record to proceed against him and even strong suspicion is enough to frame charge and at this stage of the proceedings evidence is not required to be analyzed, as it is required to be done at the final stage after trial. It is also well settled that at this stage of the proceedings only the charge-sheet and evidence collected during investigation which has been produced alongwith the charge-sheet is required to be considered. 16. There is prima facie evidence available in the case record to implicate the accused persons for the above offence. The accused, Bhrungaraj Singh, is the husband of the victim lady and accused, Sangita Munda, is the first wife of the husband of the victim who tortured the victim lady and compelled her to keep physical relationship with accused Balabhadra Singh who is the brother-in-law of the victim lady. He prayed to reject the petition. 17. On perusal of the FIR, statement of the victim recorded under Sections 164 and 161 Cr.P.C along with statement of other witnesses i.e. the father and mother of the victim lady; it is prima facie found that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Feb-2024 16:12:18 Page 6 of 7 above accused persons being the husband and first wife of the husband of the victim lady abetted Balabhadra Singh who is the brother of the husband of the victim to keep physical relationship with her without her consent, as a result she became pregnant. 18. Accordingly, this Court does not consider it appropriate to interfere in the case at this stage. The Criminal Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 19. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd Dec., 2023/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Feb-2024 16:12:18 Page 7 of 7