SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajendra Kumar vs State on 22 March, 2018

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 28 / 2018
Rajendra Kumar S/o Brajlal, by caste Bishnoi, R/o. 1 NZM(A),
Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar

State of Rajasthan

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.D. Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, PP.
For Complainant(s): Mr. Jitendra Ojha

Accused-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under

Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. to assail order dated

31st of October 2017, passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sri Ganganagar

(for short, ‘learned trial Court’), framing charge against the

petitioner for offence under Section 450, 365/34, 376D IPC and

Section 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The facts, in brief, giving rise to this revision petition are

that, at the threshold, father of the prosecutrix lodged FIR at

Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar naming

Vishnu Dutt Vishnoi as accused for the aforesaid offences.

(2 of 5)

Pursuant to FIR No.306/15, investigation commenced and

statements of the prosecutrix were recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C. as well as Section 164 Cr.P.C. Police after investigation,

submitted charge-sheet against accused Vishnu Dutt alone while

dropping name of the petitioner despite his name being revealed

for commission of aforesaid offence by the prosecutrix in her both

the statements. Feeling aggrieved with the said charge-sheet,

complainant submitted an application before the learned trial

Court under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the

petitioner. The learned trial Court, after considering the

application, by its order dated 20th January, 2016 took cognizance

against the petitioner for aforesaid offences and issued arrest

warrants against him. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order,

petitioner approached this Court by filing a revision petition

bearing No.141/2016. While arguing the revision petition,

petitioner has abandoned challenge to the order of cognizance but

simply craved for converting arrest warrants into bailable

warrants. Acceding to the prayer of the petitioner, Court decided

the revision petition on 2nd of December 2016. The operative part

of the order dated 02.12.2016, in vernacular, reads as under:

^^ekStwnk izdj.k ds rF; Hanuman Ram and ors V.s
State of Rajasthan and Anr ds izdj.k ls lekurk j[krk
gSA ,slh fLFkfr esas ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk fujLr djrs gq, fuxjkuhdrkZ
dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k fnukad
15-12-2016 rd mifLFkr gksdj ipkl gtkj :i;s dk Lo;a dk ca/k
i ,oa iaphl iphl gtkj :i;s dh nks tekur izLrqr djs rks mls
tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkosA mDr frfFk rd fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls
tekur eqpyds izLrqr ugha djus ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh
fxj¶rkjh okj.V izHkkoh jgsxkA
ifj.kker% mijksDRkkuqlkj ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk fuLrkfjr dh
tkrh gS ,oa rnuqlkj LFkxu izkFkZuk i Hkh fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA**
(3 of 5)

Subsequently, the learned trial Court heard arguments on

framing charges and by the order impugned framed charges

against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. It is argued by

learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has

committed grave illegality and impropriety in framing charges

against the petitioner. Learned counsel would contend that a bare

perusal of impugned order makes it crystal clear that no reasons

have been recorded. It is also argued by learned counsel that

while framing charges, learned trial Court has not all cared to

apply its judicial mind as to whether or not there is any ground for

presuming commission of offence by the petitioner. In support of

his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on following


1. State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy Ors.

[(1977) 2 SCC 699]

2. Shyam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan Anr.

[2014(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.)942].

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

learned trial Court has thoroughly examined the material available

on record, including the statements of prosecutrix for framing

charges against the petitioner, and therefore, no interference with

the impugned order is warranted. Learned counsel appearing for

the complainant, Mr. Jitendra Ojha, while reiterating the

arguments of learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted that earlier

also petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance before this

Court but in the said revision petition this Court has not interfered
(4 of 5)

with the order of cognizance, and therefore, on the strength of the

statements of prosecutrix, learned trial Court has rightly framed

charges against the petitioner.

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments

advanced at Bar and perused the materials available on record.

At the outset, it may be observed that the impugned order

passed by learned trial Court may not be a reasoned order but

then upon perusal of the same it is clearly spelt out that the

learned Court below has examined the evidence and materials

available on record. There remains no quarrel that charge can be

framed if there are materials showing possibility about commission

of crime as against certainty. In the background, if the

statements of prosecutrix under Section 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C.

are scrutinized, then it would ipso facto reveal that she has not

only named the petitioner but has also castigated him for offence

of rape besides other offences. At the stage of framing charge, if

there is a grave suspicion against accused person, Court may very

well frame charge by resorting to Section 228 Cr.P.C. In the

instant case allegations against the accused (petitioner) relate to

ravishing a lady and her police statements and statements

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are per se implicating him for

the offence of rape. Therefore, it cannot be said that learned trial

Court has committed any illegality or impropriety in exercise of its

power under Section 228 Cr.P.C. for framing charges against him.

(5 of 5)

In view of foregoing discussion, no case is made out for

interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently,

revision petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.


Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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