Years, R/o Ajay Colony Sapunda Road Kekri v. State of Rajasthan, through PP

: Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 22/01/2025

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri, District Ajmer in Sessions Case No.47/2024 by which charge for offence under Section 306 IPC has been framed to prosecute the accused- petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court while framing the charge against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC has not discussed even a word about the submissions made by counsel appearing for the accused, though it has been mentioned in the order that arguments were heard and report was perused. Counsel further submits that it is a well settled law that the order of framing charge must be very specific and reasoned order giving out the [2025:RJ-JP:3049] (2 of 5) [CRLR-14/2025] consideration made to the arguments submitted on behalf of the accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments has also relied upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mohammed Galib Beg vs. State of Rajasthan; S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.802/2022 decided on 29.08.2022.

4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the impugned order passed by the court below speaks of the fact that the arguments made on behalf of the accused as well as the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet was considered and the order of framing of charge was passed which clearly speaks that there was thoughtful consideration by the court below.

6. Heard. Considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. From bare perusal of the impugned order dated 19.11.2024, it is revealed that the learned court below has framed the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner without discussing anything and making observations in regard to the submissions made on behalf of the accused.

8. Section 251 of the B.N.S.S. which deals with the issue of framing of charge, reads as under: “251.(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which— (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial [2025:RJ-JP:3049] (3 of 5) [CRLR-14/2025] Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused within a period of sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused present either physically or through electronic means and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.”

9. The learned trial Judge while framing of charge against the accused has to consider the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing for the accused as is required to be done in view of provisions given under Section 249 of the B.N.S.S. Section 249 of the B.N.S.S. is quoted as under: “249. When the accused appears or is brought before the Court, in pursuance of a commitment of the case under section 232, or under any other law for the time being in force, the prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused.”

10. On joint reading the Sections 249 and 251 of the B.N.S.S., this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned trial Court is supposed to make due and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing for the accused and form its opinion as regards the framing of charge and such opinion should also have been discussed in the order passed by the learned trial Judge for [2025:RJ-JP:3049] (4 of 5) [CRLR-14/2025] framing of charge, along with the considerations made, so as to form such opinion.

11. In the present case, this Court finds that the trial Judge has framed the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner without thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the parties and without disclosing its opinion that what was that material which prima facie made out the offence against the accused-petitioner. Trial Judge is supposed to pass a reasoned order.

12. The Coordinate Bench of this court in case of Mohammed “6. In case of Galib Beg (supra) vide para 6, 7 & 8 has observed as under: Ghula Hassan Beigh Vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Ors. 2022 SCC Online 913 held that purpose of framing a charge is to intimate to accused clear, unambiguous and precise nature of accusation that accused is called upon to meet in court of instant trial. The trial court is enjoined with duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. Any endorsement on charge sheet presented by police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law.

7. The order itself reflects that the trial court has not considered the material placed on record and has failed to consider the provision of Section 227 Cr.P.C. wherein trial court is duty bound to opine whether case for discharge is made out. The order not only sans reasons but same is a non-speaking itself and sufficient to show that there was non-application of mind.

8. The cryptic order dated 24.04.2024 in sessions case No. 08/2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, is required to be set aside and matter is remanded back to trial court for afresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.”

13. In view of discussion made above, this revision petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. The order [2025:RJ-JP:3049] (5 of 5) [CRLR-14/2025] dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri, District Ajmer is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court for decision afresh after allowing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Satyendra/36 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J