HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 260/2020

Narendra Tiwari S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste

Brahmin, R/o Plot No. 41, Govind Vatika Ka Niwas Road,

Jotwada, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State, Through P.P.

2.

Bhagwati Singh S/o Shri Shyam Singh Shekhawat, By

Caste Rajput, R/o Tilakheda, P.s. Pratapnagar, Udaipur

(Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Ms. Deepika Purohit

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Anil Joshi, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

02/03/2021

The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under

Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner Narendra Tiwari

for assailing the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Criminal Revision No.138/2019,

whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order

dated 27.01.2017 passed by the learned AMJM No.1, Udaipur City,

South in Criminal Case No.155/2012 was rejected.

By the order dated 27.01.2017, the learned trial court

directed framing of charges against the petitioner for the offences

under Sections 420 and 407 read with Section 120-B IPC. The

accused filed the revision after nearly one year and nine months

claiming that he was not aware of the order framing charges. An

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-260/2020]

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was submitted

before the revisional court, but no plausible reasons were

mentioned therein. The revisional court, accordingly, dismissed

the revision in limine as being time barred.

Ms. Deepika Purohit, learned counsel representing the

petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that the order

framing charge is totally perfunctory and has been passed without

assigning any reason. The revisional court ought not to have

rejected the revison on the hyper-technical ground of delay. She

urges that the matter deserves to be remanded to the trial court

for fresh consideration on the aspect of charge.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the

impugned orders.

Suffice it to say that the trial court directed framing of

the charges against the petitioner with due consideration of the

evidence available on record. It is true that the detailed reasons

are not assigned in the order dated 27.01.2017, but as per

Section 240 CrPC, for framing charge against an accused in a

warrant case instituted upon a police report, the trial court is only

required to form an opinion that there exist reasons to believe

that the accused has committed the offences alleged and

thereafter, the charge can be suitably framed against an accused.

The order dated 27.01.2017 meets this requirement of law.

That apart, the accused and his counsel were

undoubtedly present in the trial court on 27.01.2017 when the

order framing charge was passed. The accused consciously chose

not to challenge the said order for a period of almost one year and

nine months. Learned revisional court has observed in the order

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-260/2020]

dated 24.10.2019 that the reasons assigned in the application for

condonation of delay were totally untenable and rightly so in my

opinion.

In view of the discussion made above, the impugned

orders ex facie do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or

perversity nor can the same be termed as suffering from abuse of

process of law. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the

impugned orders. Accordingly, the instant criminal miscellaneous

petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. The stay

application is also dismissed.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

19-Pramod/-