Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Sumit Kaushal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
Crl.Rev.P. 727 of 2017 & Crl.M.A. 15955 of 2017 (Stay)
Decided On : 27-07-2023
Framing of Charges - Criminal Revision Petition - The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the trial court with the direction to re-consider framing of charges in accordance with law and to pass an appropriate order regarding framing of charges by giving minimum reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The trial court framed charges against the petitioners based on a complaint and charge-sheet, but without providing minimum reasons for framing the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had framed the charges without giving minimum reasons, which is an important part of the trial, and ordered to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the trial court for re-consideration of framing of charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the framing of charges by the trial court without providing minimum reasons, as required by law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the trial court, while considering framing of charges, has the power to shift and weigh the evidence to determine a prima facie case, but cannot frame charges casually without assigning minimum reasons.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the trial court with the direction to re-consider framing of charges in accordance with law and to pass an appropriate order regarding framing of charges by giving minimum reasons.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The present criminal revision petition is filed under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the impugned order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the concerned trial court whereby the charges were ordered to be framed against the petitioners.
2. FIR bearing no.0172/2016 dated 29.02.2016 was got registered under sections 328/307/366/376/34 IPC on the basis of complaint made by the respondent no. 2 wherein the petitioners were implicated. The charge-sheet was filed after conclusion of investigation for the offences punishable under sections 376/323/34 IPC.
3. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi vide impugned order dated 21.07.2017 ordered to frame the charges against the petitioner no. 1/Sumit Kaushal for the offences punishable under sections 328/366/394/376/307/506(II) IPC and against the petitioners no. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under sections 323/34 IPC. The impugned order dated 21.07.2017 reads as under:
"21.07.2017
Heard submissions on charge.
There is sufficient material on record to proceed against accused Sumit Kaushal U/s 328/366/394/376/307/506(11) IPC and against accused Sujeta & Bhagwan Dass for the offence punishable 323/34 IPC.
Charge is framed accordingly against accused persons, they pleaded not guilty. Matter now to come up for PE on 19.08.2017.
Prosecutrix be summoned through Investigating Officer for next date.
IO be also summoned."
4. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the charges were framed without considering the material collected during the investigation as reflected from the charge-sheet and the trial court has not given any reason for framing the charges as mentioned in the impugned order dated 21.07.2017. The trial court has framed the charges against the petitioners in utter violation of settled principle of law. The counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has referred the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal bearing no. 175/2013 dated 23.01.2013 titled as Prashant Bharti v State of NCT of Delhi, 2013(9) SCC 293 and judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this court in Criminal Revision Petition bearing no. 574/2016 dated 15.09.2016 titled as Smt Kavita v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5382.
5. The counsel for the respondent no. 2 argued that the trial court has rightly framed the charges on the basis of material collected during the investigation and culminated into filing of the charge-sheet as per section 173 Cr.P.C. There is no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 21.07.2017.
6. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent no. 1, in his fairness, stated that although the trial court has framed the charges on the basis of material collected during the investigation but minimum reasons are not given for framing of charges for the offences for which the charge-sheet is filed before the concerned court.
7. The trial court at the time of consideration of framing of charges, has power to shift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused and the test to determine a prima facie case is actually made out or not depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Although the court is not required to give detailed reasons at the time of consideration of the charge but simultaneously, framing of charges is an important part of the trial and the charges cannot be framed casually without assigning the minimum reasons. The impugned order dated 21.07.2017 whereby the charges were ordered to be framed is devoid of any reason and the trial court has only mentioned that there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.07.2017 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial court with the direction to re-consider framing of charges in accordance with law and to pass an
The trial court must provide minimum reasons for framing charges, and framing of charges is an important part of the trial that cannot be done casually.
A trial court must apply its mind to the evidence and material before framing charges, ensuring reasonable grounds exist for presuming guilt.
At the stage of framing the charge, the court should only consider whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused based on the material on record, and should not weigh the ev....
The court affirmed that at the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case is required, emphasizing that meticulous examination of evidence is not necessary.
At the charge-framing stage, only prima facie evidence is required, and strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed against the accused.
At the stage of framing charges, the probative value of the materials cannot be gone into and the materials brought on record by the prosecution have to be accepted as true.
There are no limits of powers of Court under Section 482 of Code but more power, more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
