SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Noordeen Khan And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 10 May, 2017

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1941 / 2016
1. Noordeen Khan S/o Shri Kalu Khan Mev B/c Mev, R/o Village
Devta, Tehsil Kisangarh Bas, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Samaydeen Khan S/o Shri Kalu Khan Mev B/c Mev, R/o
Village Devta, Tehsil Kisangarh Bas, District Alwar,
3. Mausam Khan S/o Shri Kalu Khan Mev B/c Mev, R/o Village
Devta, Tehsil Kisangarh Bas, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Balwada, Mr. Hemant Dagar
Mr. Ajeet Kulhar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Godara, P.P.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed

the validity of the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar in

Session Case No.09/2015 whereby the learned court below has

framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under

Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 325, 325/34, 308, 308/34 and 354

IPC in the said case pertaining to FIR No.103/2014, registered at

Police Station Kishangarh Bas, Alwar.

2. The contents of FIR No.103/2014, P.S. Kishangarh

Bas, dated 18.02.2014, reads as under:-

(2 of 4)

“lsok esa] Jheku Fkkusnkj lkgc] Fkkuk fd’kux ckl] fo”k; rgjhjh fjiksVZ
Jheku th fuosnu gS fd vkt fnukad 1822014 dks le; djhc 12-301
cts nksigj dk okdk gS esjk HkkbZ ‘ksjflag o egk flag iqrz gjpUn tkV fuoklh
cEcksjk ds lkFk nokbZ ysdj vius ?kj vk jgk Fkk rks dkyw [kka eso ds ?kj ds
ikl eksle] uwjnhu] le;nhu iqrz dkyw [kka eso] jLlh] cLlh] eksVh] iqfrz;ku
dkyq [kka eso ,oa nhuw iqrz fgEer eso fuoklh nsork Fkkuk fd’kux ckl ,d
jk; e’fojk gksdj [kM+s gq, Fks ftuds gkFkks esa ykBh QlhZ Fkh tks gh esjk HkkbZ
dkyq [kka ds ?kj ds ikl igqapk mu yksxks us esjs ckbZ dks ?ksj fy;k vkSj tku
ls ekjus dh fu;kr ls uwjnhu us esjs ckbZ ds flj esa QlhZ dh ekjh eksle us
ykBh dh esjs ckbZ ds gkFk esa ekjh] le;nhu us ykBh dh iSj esa ekjh lHkh
eqyfteku /kM+k /kM+ ykfB;ksa ls esjs HkkbZ ds lkFk ekj ihV dhA egkflag us
NqM+okuk pkgk rks mlds Hkh pksVsa vkbZA xM+s dh vkokt lqudj dkQh vkneh
vk x;s Fks ftUgksus chp cpko djok;kA esjs HkkbZ dh gkyr xaHkhj gks xbZ FkhA
ge vius HkkbZ dks ysdj fd’kux ckl vLirky esa ysdj vk x;s mlds ckn
esjs HkkbZ dh ifRu iwtk dks irk pyus ij oks fd’kux ckl vLirky vk jgh
Fkh tks tSls gh og jksM ij vkbZ rks uwjnhu us mldks idM+ fy;k vkSj mlds
diM+s QkM+ fn;s ftlls csvnc gks xbZA fl;kjke o vU; xkao ds O;fDr;ksa us
cM+h eqf’dy ls cpk;k vc Hkh esjs HkkbZ dh gkyr xaHkhj cuh gqbZ gS ftldks
vyoj ds fy, jSQj dj fn;kA bu yksxksa us okdk dy dh dgk lquh dks ysdj
fd;k vr% fjiksVZ dks vk;k gwa fd eqyfteku ds fo:) fjiksVZ ntZ dh tkdj
dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tkosA”

3. There are as many as 14 injuries on the body of

injured person Sher Singh, including skull. According to the

radiology report, multiple fractures have also been detected on the

body of the injured and on the basis of material submitted before

the trial court, the charges have been framed.

4. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the case of Munna

Devi Vs. State of Raj. Anr., Criminal Appeal

No.1138/2001, decided on 06.11.2001, has laid down as


“Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 397/401
and 227/228 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections
376, 354, 451 and 511 – Revision – Powers of
revisional court – Revision against framing of charges
under Sections 376, 511, 451 and 354, IPC – Whether
order framing charges liable to be interfered with by
High Court in revision? – Held, ‘no’ – High Court has no
authority to reappreciate evidence – Premature for
High Court to say that material placed before trial court
insufficint for framing charges – Or the statement of
prosecutrix herself not sufficient to proceed further
against accused – Order of High Court unsustainable
and set aside.

(3 of 4)

The revisional power under the Code of Criminal
Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual
manner. While exercising such powers, the High Court
has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the
manner as the trial and the appellate courts are
required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised
only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against
the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the
framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first
information report, even if they are taken at the face
value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute
the offence for which the accused has been charged.”

Likewise, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkaran

Mehdu, Criminal Appeal No.216/2017, decided on

03.02.2017, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that:

“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
consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. [26] (iv) The object of the Section
397 of Code, 1973 is to set right a patent defect or an
error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has
crept in the proceeding. The High Court erred in
quashing the charges framed. The order of the High
Court was set aside and the order of Special Judge was

which, apparently does not reflect in the case

under hand.

In the light of the above and material produced,

contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no

serious injury was there on the vitals of the injured, bears no

force. Since it is manifest that appreciation of evidence or its

reappreciation, cannot be made by a revisional court and

charge/s are to be framed by the trial court on the basis of

material, which amply appears there, hence, this revision petition

lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

(4 of 4)

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned

trial court.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation