S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 172/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Shamiullah & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 172/2010 Date of Order : 06.12.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. Pradeep Shah for the petitioners Ms. Chandralekha – Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT By this revision petition, petitioners Shamiullah S/o Shareef, Mohd. Shahbaj S/o Shareef, Mohd. Ashik @ Mota S/o Mohd. Hussain and Gulamdutrageer S/o Moinuddin have challenged the order dated 28.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 22/2010, whereby the learned trial court has framed charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 308 read with Section 149 IPC alongwith charges for offence under Section 147, 341, 323/149 IPC. Page 1 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 172/2010 The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of the oral statement of complainant Shakir Khan made before the Station House Officer, Police Station Hathipol, District Udaipur, a case under Section 147, 341, 323, 308 read with Section 149 IPC was registered and the investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, petitioners- accused were arrested and after usual investigation, charge- sheet was filed against them for the offence under Section 147, 149, 341, 323, 308 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) No. 1, North, Udaipur. The learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur and ultimately the case was transferred for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur. The learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 28.01.2010 framed charges against petitioners for the offence under Section 147, 341, 323/149, 308/149 IPC. The petitioners being aggrieved of the aforesaid order framing charge under Section 308 read with Section 149 against each of them, have preferred this revision petition praying inter alia that they may be discharged from the charge Page 2 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 172/2010 under Section 308 read with Section 149 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no ground to frame the charge against the petitioners under Section 308 read with Section 149 IPC as none of the injuries sustained by injured Sharafat Khan and Shakir Khan were grievous in nature. He further argued that the learned trial court without assigning any reason, ordered to frame the charge under Section 308 read with Section 149. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners further contended that at this stage, the documents submitted with the charge-sheet after investigation may require to be appreciated by this court. He relied upon the following authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his contentions :- (i)Dilawar Balu Kurane Versus State of Maharashtra, 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 310 (ii)State of Maharashtra & Ors. Versus Som Nath Thapa & Ors., 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 820 (iii)State of Karnataka Versus L. Muniswamy & Ors., AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1489 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor contended that while framing the charge against the petitioners, the learned trial court appreciated the fact that at least 5 to 6 Page 3 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 172/2010 persons started to beat the injured persons, thus, there was attempt to commit the culpable homicide, therefore, the order of the learned trial court does not require any interference. I have considered the rivals submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The facts of the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the present case. Under Section 397 and 401 IPC togather it is evident that the High Court can interfere in all cases of incorrectness, illegality or impropriety of any finding, sentence or order or irregularity of any procedure of the inferior courts by taking such measures or passing such orders as could be passed by an appellate court. The object of revisional jurisdiction is to confer upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction and the idea is to correct miscarriage of justice which may arise from various causes. Thus, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional cases. Page 4 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 172/2010 The learned trial court is not supposed to scrutinize the evidence meticulously at the stage of the framing of the charge. A grave suspicion is sufficient for framing the charge and required standard of proof is not as onerous as it is at the stage of judgment. The conjoint reading of the First Information Report, statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the medical evidence in the case in hand does not leave any doubt about sufficiency of material available on record for framing of the charges as ordered by the learned trial court. At the stage of framing of the charges, the court need not weigh the evidence collected by the prosecution. The finding of the trial court may be revised only if there has been an error in framing of charge. It is not just possible for the revisional court to hold that the prosecution is false, frivolous or vexatious or is an apparent abuse of the process of law. When the trial court has affirmed the opinion that on material the accused has committed an offence, the revisional powers cannot be exercised to quash the charge. Even otherwise the scope of revision is much limited than that of appeal because a revisional court can interfere only if the trial court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in Page 5 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 172/2010 it or has committed grave irregularity calling for interference. Simply because some other view is also possible, a revisional court shall not substitute the order of the subordinate court with its own view and order. Viewed from any angle, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. In the net result, this revision petition filed by petitioners Shamiullah S/o Shareef, Mohd. Shahbaj S/o Shareef, Mohd. Ashik @ Mota S/o Mohd. Hussain and Gulamdutrageer S/o Moinuddin against the order dated 28.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 22/2010 is dismissed at the admission stage itself. [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI],J. Pramod Page 6 of 6