Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
Navneet Saraf – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8446 of 2021
Decided On : 28-03-2022
Section 406 IPC - Framing of Charge - The court held that the framing of charge under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner was time-barred, and both the trial court and the revisional court had committed errors in dismissing the petition. The order of framing of charge under Section 406 IPC was devoid of merits and liable to be set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the order of framing the charge against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the framing of charge under Section 406 IPC was time-barred and that both the trial court and the revisional court had committed errors in dismissing the petition. The order of framing of charge under Section 406 IPC was set aside, and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed.
Issues: The issues involved the framing of charges under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the petitioner, the time-barred nature of the charge under Section 406 IPC, and the errors committed by the trial court and the revisional court in dismissing the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the time-barred nature of the charge under Section 406 IPC, the errors committed by the trial court and the revisional court, and the lack of merits in the order of framing of charge under Section 406 IPC.
Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the order of framing of charge under Section 406 IPC was set aside. The respondent-complainant was given the liberty to file the petition under Section 216 Cr.P.C. before the court concerned at an appropriate stage.
ORDER
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Revision No.41/2018 titled as Navneet Saraf Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan (presently Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan-I) in Criminal Case No.93/2011 titled as State Vs. Navneet Saraf framing the charge against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC has been upheld.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498- A IPC on 28.06.2011 and trial court had taken cognizance on the same date. After that, trial court heard arguments on framing of charge and framed charges of offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after investigation, offence under Section 406 IPC was not found proved against the petitioner. At that time, complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor had not submitted any application regarding taking cognizance under Section 406 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that punishment under Section 406 IPC is 3 years and present charges framed under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner is time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had filed the revision petition, the said petition was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I vide order dated 07.09.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that trial court as well as learned revisional court had committed error in dismissing the petition.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that trial court as well as learned revisional court had not committed any error in its order. They further submit that trial court has considered the statements recorded during investigation and framed the charges under Section 406 IPC. They further submit that present case is not time barred. So, the petition be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Om Wati (Smt) and Anr. Vs. State reported in (2001) 4 SCC 333; (2) State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Salim Khan and Anr. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 525; (3) Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Surinder Kumar & Ors. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 530; (4) Vaneet Mahajain Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in JT 2017 (7) SC 69; (5) Sushil Ansal Vs. State through CBI on 11.09.2001; (6) A. Meenakshi Sundaram Vs. The Additional Superintendent of Police decided on 01.08.2014; (7) Charan Vs. State of UP in Criminal Revn. No.1052/1985 decided on 11.03.1999 and (8) Sh. Chandra Prakash & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. Decided on 15.04.1996.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent.
6. It is an admitted position that charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC on 28.06.2011 and learned trial court had framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC on 21.02.2018 after a lapse of 7 years. Punishment under Section 406 IPC is 3 years. So, framing of charge under Section 406 IPC is time barred. Learned trial court had erred in framing the charge under Section 406 IPC. Learned revisional court had also committed mistake in dismissing the revision petition. So, in my considered view, trial court had committed error in framing the charge of offence under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner. So, the order of framing of charge under Section 406 IPC is devoid of merits and liable to be set aside.
7. The Criminal Miscel
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the framing of charge under Section 406 IPC was time-barred, and the errors committed by the trial court and the revisional court in dismissin....
A trial court must apply its mind to the evidence and material before framing charges, ensuring reasonable grounds exist for presuming guilt.
The limitation period for filing a Final Report under IPC offences is three years, and failure to comply bars prosecutorial actions.
An order framing charges in a criminal trial is not purely interlocutory or final and can be challenged in revision under certain circumstances, but generally, recourse should first be sought from th....
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 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 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.
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
