Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 25504
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI, J
DINESH S/O GOPAL LOHARA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 12774 of 2024
MS SHALINI S MAIR(2681), MS VRUNDA SHAH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court affirmed that charges can be framed based on the evidence presented without requiring detailed orders, and claims of ignorance regarding charges must be substantiated.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 420, and 120B - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 397(2) - Petition to quash orders of Revisional and Trial Courts regarding framing of charges - Petitioner alleged to have duped complainant under pretext of loan processing fees - Petitioner claimed ignorance of charge framing due to language barrier and lack of legal representation - Revisional Court found no merit in petitioner's claims, affirming that charges were properly framed and supported by evidence. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 6)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charges - The court must evaluate material to determine if there is a ground for presuming the accused committed the offence, without assessing the sufficiency of evidence at this stage. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused in a fraud case, challenged the framing of charges, claiming he was unaware of the proceedings due to language issues and inadequate legal representation. The FIR alleged he duped the complainant of Rs.12,12,477/- through fraudulent loan insurance policies.
Findings of Court:
The Revisional Court found that the Trial Court had properly framed charges based on the evidence presented, and the petitioner's claims of ignorance were unconvincing.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner was adequately informed of the charges and whether the Trial Court erred in framing charges against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner’s claims lacked credibility, emphasizing that the framing of charges does not require detailed orders and that the presence of evidence suffices for charge framing.
Result: Petition dismissed in limine.
ORAL ORDER
Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the Respondent- State.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 14.08.2024, passed by the learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara (in brief, ‘Revisional Court’), in Criminal Revision Application No. 281 of 2023 as well as the order dated 23.05.2022, passed by the learned 8 th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara (‘Trial Court’, hereinafter), in Criminal Case No. 5919 of 2022.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is one of the accused, who came to be arrested, pursuant to the registration of the FIR, bearing No. 11196040210049 of 2021, with Cyber Crime Police Station, Vadodara City, for the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code . In the impugned FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner, who was not named in the impugned FIR, along with other co-accused persons called the original complainant- Respondent No.2 and convinced him to take various loan insurance policies and thereby, duped an amount of Rs.12,12,477/- from Respondent No.2, under the pretext of loan processing fees.
2.1 Learned Advocate, Ms. Mair, appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the petitioner was arrested, in connection with the impugned FIR, he was not supplied the relevant documents and only his signature was obtained by a person on a vakalatnama, who introduced himself to the petitioner as an advocate appearing through legal-aid. Thereafter, the charge came to be framed against the petitioner.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware about the framing of the charge qua him and therefore, he challenged the order dated 23.05.2022, passed by the trial Court before the Revisional Court. However, the Revisional Court also rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 14.08.2024 and therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
2.3 After making the submissions, learned Advocate, Ms. Mair, requested for time, so as to take instructions from the petitioner to substantiate his case. However, as this Court did not find any justifiable reason for adjourning the matter, after the submissions were made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, such a request was rejected, whereupon, learned Advocate, Ms. Mair, requested this Court to pass the appropriate orders.
3. Learned APP, Ms. Shah, appearing for the Respondent- State vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that case put forward by the present petitioner cannot be believed for the reason that neither in this petition nor in the revision application filed before the Revisional Court, it is stated by the petitioner that, at the time of framing of the charge, other co- accused were not present.
3.1 Learned Advocate, Ms. Mair, also could not point out anything from the record that at any point of time, such a submission was made before the Court below.
3.2 Learned APP, Ms. Shah, submitted that, in fact, the entire case of the petitioner is based on the fact that he is not knowing the vernacular language, i.e. Gujarati, and therefore, when he signed the vakalatnama of the learned advocate, who claimed to be appearing through legal-aid, he was not aware that he has engaged an advocate and he came to know about the framing of the charge, only after the same was framed.
3.3 Learned APP, Ms. Shah, also took this Court through the reasons assigned by the Revisional Court, while rejecting the revision application filed by the present petitioner, and submitted that each and every submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner was considered and dealt with by the Revisional Court and thereafter, by assigning reasons, the Revisional Court rejected the revision application of the petitioner and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned orders.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record, I find that t
