[2026:RJ-JD:7721]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 185/2026 Akash Giri S/o Shri Dharampal, Aged About 25 Years, Near Sanjay Vatika, House No. 105, Ward No. 13, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

2. Vikcy Kirad Alias Vikesh S/o Shri Man Singh, Sugar Meel Colony, At Present Resident At 100 Ft Road , Near Bhujiya Factory, Sadu Colony, Police Station Jhanwar Nagar, Ganganagar, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

10/02/2026

1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been instituted under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order dated 07.11.2025 rendered by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.134/2021, whereby charges came to be framed against the petitioner under Sections 143, 341, 323, 325, 458 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code, as also under Sections 3(2)(VA) and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, emanates from a Parcha Bayan recorded on 08.10.2020 at Jawahar Nagar Hospital (Bed No. 9), where the complainant was undergoing treatment. He alleged that on 07.10.2020 at about 7:40 P.M., while he was at Sabji Mandi to pick up his friend Vivek Sharma and was consuming cold drinks, he was allegedly assaulted by Ravi Indora, Akash Tanwar, Kapil, Modsingh, Rajavirkh and three to four other persons. The animus attributed to the accused persons was stated to arise from an earlier case under Section 307 IPC instituted by the complainant and Vivek Sharma, and it was alleged that the assault was perpetrated to coerce a compromise.

2.1. On the basis of the said statement, an FIR was initially registered under Sections 323, 341, 382 and 143 IPC. During the course of investigation, Section 458 IPC and provisions of the SC/ ST Act were incorporated. Upon culmination of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Ganganagar, who, by order dated 07.11.2025, framed the aforementioned charges against the petitioner, giving rise to the present revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the ingredients of Section 458 IPC are conspicuously absent from the material on record and that the subsequent addition of Section 458 IPC and the provisions of the SC/ST Act during investigation is bereft of cogent evidentiary foundation. It is further urged that no material exists to attract Section 308 IPC and, at the highest, the allegations may fall within the ambit of Section 325 IPC. On these premises, it is submitted that the impugned order of framing charge is legally unsustainable and warrants interference.

4. Per contra, the learned Deputy Government Advocate has stoutly supported the order impugned and has submitted that the material collected during investigation sufficiently justifies the framing of charges.

5. I have bestowed my anxious consideration upon the rival submissions and have meticulously perused the record as well as the order under challenge.

5.1. At the threshold, it is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to embark upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a roving enquiry into the probative value thereof. Nonetheless, it is equally well settled that the Court must evince conscious application of judicial mind to the material placed before it and must be satisfied that the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie disclosed. A mechanical or ritualistic framing of charge merely upon submission of the charge-sheet is antithetical to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.

5.2. In the case at hand, the impugned order does not reflect any discernible analysis of the role attributed to the petitioner, nor does it indicate