S. No.5 Regular

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

CRM(M) No.292/2022

CrlM No.1382/2022

Nazir Ahmad Peer and Ors

…. Petitioner(s)

Through:Mr.S.H.Thakur, Advocate

V/s

UT of J&K and Ors

…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr.Sajad Ashraf, GA

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

ORDER

20.12.2022

1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class (Sub Judge) Trehgam, whereby the

learned Magistrate has framed charges under Sections 447, 506(ii),

427 IPC against the petitioners.

2. It appears that an FIR No.26/2020 for offences under Sections 447,

506(ii) and 427 IPC was registered by Police Station Trehgam on the

basis of the complaint filed by PW Waseem Aijaz Khan. In the

complaint it was alleged that on 07.05.2020, the petitioners have

trespassed into the land of the complainant comprised in Khasra

No.1847 at Village Dablan and illegally occupied 2 to 3 marlas of

land. It was further alleged in the complaint that the petitioners

damaged the demarcation of land and that they chased the

complainant away from the land in question and also extended death

threats to him. On the basis of this complaint FIR No.26/2020 for

offence under Sections 447, 506(ii) and 427 IPC was registered and

investigation was set into motion. After investigation of the case the

challan came to be filed against the petitioners before the trial court.

2

CRM(M) No.292/2022

CrlM No.1382/2022

The learned trial court vide the impugned order has, after hearing the

parties, come to the conclusion that prima facie offences under

Sections 447, 506(ii) and 427 of IPC are made out against the

petitioners and, accordingly, the charges were framed against them.

3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground

that the same has been passed without application of mind in a

mechanical manner. It has been further submitted that the allegations

made in the challan are false, inasmuch as, the petitioners do not have

any land adjacent to the land of the complainant. It has been further

submitted that there is a contradiction between the allegations made in

the complaint and what has been alleged in the challan against the

petitioners. It has also been contended that the dispute between the

petitioners and the complainant is primarily of civil nature but this

aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the

learned trial court while framing charges against the petitioners.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

on record, including the trial court record.

5. Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C relate to discharge/framing of

charges in a warrant trial case. A conjoint reading of these provisions

reveals that if upon considering the documents sent alongwith the

charge sheet and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, the

Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless,

the accused has to be discharged and if in the opinion of the

Magistrate the accused has committed an offence triable by the said

Magistrate, he shall frame the charge against the accused.

3

CRM(M) No.292/2022

CrlM No.1382/2022

6. It is a well settled law that at the stage of charge or discharge of the

accused, the trial court is not expected to deeply analyze the material

on record and to sift and weigh the material so as to conclude whether

the available material is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the

offence alleged in the charge sheet. The Court has only to see whether

the accused can be put on trial. The Court has to asses and evaluate

the material on record with a view to find out if the said material

discloses existence of the ingredients constituting the offence alleged

against the accused. At the same time the Court has