Full Judgment
Harbans Lal, J.
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 2.4.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 90/2004 whereby charges for offences under Sections 323, 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(5) of the Act of 1989 have been framed.
2. The relevant facts are that of 27.3.2004 an F.I.R. came to be lodged at P.S. Shivdaspura by one Smt. Dhapu Devi W/o Bhanwar Lal Meena to the effect that petitioner Jagdish Prasad Sharma along with one Sanwar Ram and Sita Ram and 22-25 other persons came and forcibly took the possession of the land belonging to the complainant.
3. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 323, 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(5) of the Act of 1989 (hereinafter referred in short as 'the Act') against the petitioner and one Sanwar Ram.
4. The trial Court after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the materials placed before it passed the impugned order directing faming of charges as indicated hereinabove.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offences under Sections 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(5) of the Act of 1989 are not made out as there is no evidence on record in support of the fact that the land in question belongs to the complainant or her husband. Therefore, there is no sufficient material to frame charges against the accused for offences under Sections 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(5) of the Act of 1989. He has, therefore, urged that these charges do not stand and deserve to be quashed and the petitioner deserves to be discharged of the charges.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the contention and he has tried to support the order of the learned trial Court.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the record.
8. Admittedly, the land bearing Khasra Nos. 2381,2382,2380/6406 and 2383/6660 belong to Brijmohan S/o Badri Narayan Mahajan who has given the alleged power of attorney dated 29.9.2000 in favour of the petitioner and has also entered into an agreement dated 28.9.2000 to sell the said property to the younger brother of petitioner, Ramprakash. These documents along with oral statements of Smt. Dhapu Devi, Sitaram, Kali, Bhonri Devi, Mooli, Rama, Sujilal, Ramlal, Moolchand, Ramsahay, Badri Narayan and Motilal prima facie proved cultivatory possession of the petitioner on the land in question. At this stage, this Court in its limited revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon a roving enquiry by weighing the materials on record to see as to whether their title and possession of the property stands scrutining of law or not.
9. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charge, the court cannot delve deep into appreciation of the evidence. It Is to see only a prima-facie case. If the court comes to the conclusion that there Is prima-facie material to proceed against the accused, the charges may be framed and the revisional court ought not to and cannot Interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court unless the order Impugned Is perverse and arbitrary resulting Into miscarriage of justice.
10. It is further well settled that at the stage of charge, the Judge is not obliged to consider in detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved would be incompatible with the innocence, of the accused or not.
11. In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja : AIR 180 SC 52, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the lower Courts while dealing with matters of framing charges has observed as under:
the standard test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 to 228. At this stage, even a very strong 'suspicion' founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.
12. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sarmal reported in : 1979 CriLJ154 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has further held as under:
Under Section 228 the Court has to see whether there is prima facie case against the accused-petitioner or not and evidence has to be looked into for very limited purpose at the stage of charge.
13. In Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari reported in : 1990 CriLJ669 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
At the stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of evidence is not required.
14. In State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari and Ors. reported in 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 407, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
It is well settled law that at the stage of framing the charges, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed.
15. In State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Ors. reported in : 2001 CriLJ124 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
High Court's power to quash the charge should not be exercised except for strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and in order to avoid the abuse of process of the court the charge needed to be quashed. High Court should not sift the available medical evidence and quash the charge.
16. In Ram Kumar Luharia v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in : 2001 CriLJ712 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
At the stage of charge, evidence could not be weighed.
17. In Smt. Omwati and Anr. v. The State of Delhi through Delhi Administration : 2001 (2) Crimes 59 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
We would again remind the High Courts of their statutory obligation not to interfere at the stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protracting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for and unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.
18. In view of the legal position that has emerged from a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts as well as materials on record of this case as indicated above, no case for interference in the impugned order of the learned court below is made out.
19. Consequently, this revision petition under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.