Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Mithileshwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand through D.M., Almora - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application (u/S 528 Application) No. 312 of 2024
Decided on : 03-09-2024
(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 211, 212, 213, 214, and 215 - Criminal Revision - Challenge to framing of charges - The Revisional Court affirmed the Trial Court's order but directed fresh charges to be framed with specific details of the incident. The applicant contended insufficient material for charges under IPC Sections 354 and 427. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Charge Framing - The court emphasized the necessity of detailing time, place, and particulars of the offence in the charge, as mandated by the Cr.P.C. The absence of such details constitutes a serious procedural breach. (Paras 9-10)
(C) Remand - The court remanded the matter for fresh charge framing, affirming the need for compliance with procedural requirements. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged the order framing charges for offences under IPC Sections 354, 427, 504, and 506, asserting lack of prima facie evidence and procedural defects in the charge.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh charge framing in accordance with the Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence for charges and adherence to procedural requirements in charge framing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that charges must be framed with specific details as per the Cr.P.C., and failure to do so is a serious procedural error.
Result: The order framing charges was quashed, and the matter was remanded for compliance with procedural mandates.
JUDGMENT :
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
The instant Criminal Misc. Application has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 10.07.2024, passed in Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2024, arising out of Criminal Case No. 91 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand vs. Mithileshwar Singh, under Sections 354, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District Almora.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged implicating the present applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, which was registered as Case Crime No. 03 of 2022, wherein, after concluding the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 427 IPC, in which, after taking cognizance the applicant was summoned and vide order 13.02.2024, the Trial Court framed the charges for the said offences. Being aggrieved with the order dated 13.02.2024, passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora, a Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2024 was preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District Almora, which was dismissed on 10.07.2024 and the order passed by the Trial Court dated 13.02.2024 was confirmed. While dismissing the Revision, the Revisional Court directed the Trial Court to frame fresh charge by mentioning the date and place of incident.
3. By the instant application the present applicant is challenging the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 10.07.2024 on the ground that on the one hand the revisional court affirmed the order dated 13.02.2024, whereby the Trial Court framed the charges and on the other hand, the Revisional Court directed the Trial Court to frame the fresh charge by mentioning the date and place of the incident.
In addition to this, the present applicant is also challenging the entire proceedings on the ground that there is no sufficient material to frame the charges against the applicant and there are no ingredients which constitute the offence under Sections 354 and 427 IPC and there is no prima facie evidence to proceed against the present applicant.
4. Earlier, the present applicant approached this Court preferring the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1926 of 2022, whereby the interim protection was granted to the applicant on 17.10.2022 and thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed and the writ petition was disposed of finally. Thereafter, an application was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court bearing C-482 Petition No. 1611 of 2023 and the said Application was disposed of finally in the light of the judgement rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577. The allegations against the applicant is that in the institution, the applicant as well as the complainant are posted as Lecturer and the applicant used to misbehave and humiliate the complainant and a complaint was also made to the Principal of the institution. Consequently, the First Information Report was lodged against the applicant by the respondent-complainant on 29.09.2022 bearing Case Crime No. 03 of 2022, wherein the charge-sheet was filed and after taking cognizance the charges has been framed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no material for constituting the offences, for which, charges have been framed. Apart form this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charges as framed are completely against the mandate of Section 211 and 212 of Cr.P.C., since there is no any description about the date, time and place of the incident and in a very mechanical manner the charges have been framed.
5. I perused the order passed by the Trial Court dated 13.02.2024 which pertains to framing of charge against the applicant as well as order passed by the Revisional Court.
6. Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedu
Charges must be framed with specific details of time, place, and particulars as mandated by the Cr.P.C., and failure to comply constitutes a serious procedural breach.
Point of Law : Once charges have been framed, the issue of discharge becomes redundant, as Courts have no jurisdiction to allow discharge after charges having been framed.
The court established that at the charge framing stage, a strong suspicion of guilt suffices to proceed, without requiring proof of the allegations.
Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of qua....
A trial court must apply its mind to the evidence and material before framing charges, ensuring reasonable grounds exist for presuming guilt.
A Criminal Court has the discretion to frame charges based on evidence from prosecution records, regardless of the police final report.
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.
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
