1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR (Panji @ Panna Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.18/2008 Date of Order :- 16.09.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Vishwajeet Mantri, for the petitioner. Mr.Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor. Mr.J.S. Tanwar , for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 28.07.2007 wherein the learned trial court had framed charges against the respondent No.2 for offence under section 420 IPC. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 20.11.2005, the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint against the accused-respondent No.2 and other five persons for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh. On the said complaint, the learned Judge directed the concerned police station to lodge FIR against the accused persons. According to the direction of the learned trial court, the concerned police station lodged an FIR, bearing FIR 2 No.256/2004, at Police Station, Kishangarh against the accused-respondent No.2 and other co-accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. After a thorough investigation, police filed challan only against the accused-respondent No.2 under Section 420 IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance under Section 420 IPC & commenced the trial. Vide order dated 28.07.2007, the learned trial court framed charges against the accused-respondent under Section 420 IPC. Since the accused-respondent No.2 was aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2007, he filed a revision petition before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer. Vide order dated 27.11.2007, the learned revisoinal court quashed and set aside the order dated 28.07.2007. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that at the stage of framing of the charge, the learned trial court could not have discussed the evidence elaborately and could not have given a judicial finding as to whether there was an inducement made by the respondent No.2 and whether this inducement has been acted upon or not. At the state of framing of the charge, the learned trial court is concerned only with the existence of a strong prima facie case. A bare perusal of the complaint filed by the petitioner, as well as his statement, would go to show that a strong prima facie case does exist against the respondent No.2. Therefore, the 3 reasoning given by the revisional court that the learned trial court should have discussed the evidence and given a judicial finding, is legally untenable. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Tanwar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, has contended that there is a civil suit pending between the parties, that the property in dispute is ill defined. Therefore, the learned revisional court was justified in insisting that the learned trial court should have discussed the evidence available on record. Hence, he has supported the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of the charge, the learned court is concerned only with the existence of a strong prima facie case against the accused. If such a strong prima facie case does exist, the learned trial court would be justified in framing the charge. At this preliminary stage, the learned trial court is neither expected to critically analise the evidence, nor is excepted to give any judicial finding. Therefore, the observation, made by the learned revisional court that a judicial finding should have been given, or a detailed reason should have been stated by the learned trial court, are per se contrary to the settled principle 4 of criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned revisional court is highly mis-placed. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is, hereby, allowed. The impugned order dated 27.11.2007 is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the order dated 28.07.2007 is, hereby, confirmed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-