Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Heera Lal S/o Kishnaram, R/o Dariba – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. The legal issues in this petition are (i) "Whether order of framing of charge is interlocutory or final in nature? & (ii) Whether against the order of framing of charge, the Revisional Court, i.e., the High Court or the Court of Sessions, should be approached?" It is in this background, the issues involved in this petition are required to be decided.
2. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been made to the FIR No.818/2010 registered at Police Station Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar and also against the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar in criminal case No.604/2011 by which the charges have been framed against the petitioner under Sections 467 , 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the alleged incident occurred in the year 1989, a report was registered against the petitioner in the year 2010, i.e., after a delay of more than 21 years. Counsel submits that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties for which the false FIR was registered against the petitioner after a great delay to give it a colour of a cri
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....
A trial court must apply its mind to the evidence and material before framing charges, ensuring reasonable grounds exist for presuming guilt.
The court has the power to frame charges against an accused person if there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against him.
The trial court must provide a reasoned basis for framing charges, ensuring thorough consideration of all relevant evidence.
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.
The court established that at the charge framing stage, a strong suspicion of guilt suffices to proceed, without requiring proof of the allegations.
The High Court affirmed the Assistant Sessions Judge's authority to frame a further charge after trial as permitted by the Criminal Procedure Code's provisions.
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.
The court emphasized the procedural propriety requiring litigants to first approach subordinate courts before the High Court unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing this route.
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
