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 the Sessions Court.

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 criminal case. Counsel submits that the aforesaid FIR resulted in negative final report, as the investigating agency was also of the same view that the matter is of civil nature.

4. Counsel submits that subsequently, a protest petition was submitted by the complainant, cognizance was taken against the petitioner and now, charges have been framed against him for the offences under Sections 467 , 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. Counsel submits that the order of framing of charge is interlocutory in nature and the same is not revisable under Section 397 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (16) SCC 299.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

7. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

8. Perusal of the record indicates that FIR bearing No.818/2010 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar which has resulted in negative final report in the year 2010 itself and thereafter, cognizance was taken against the petitioner and he is facing trial before the Court below and now, charges have been framed against the petitioner for the above offences. Against the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the validity of the same and entire proceedings.

9. In the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the order of framing of charge is neither purely an interlocutory order nor a final order and the same can be challenged before the High Court in a petition under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been further held that challenge to the order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of the rare case, only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter. It has been held in Para 27 as under:-

"Thus, even though in dealing with different situations, seemingly conflicting observations may have been made while holding that the order framing charge was interlocutory order and was not liable to be in