IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT GOPAL LAL VS. STATE OF RAJ. S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.676 of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated May 9, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jaipur City Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 61 of 2007 whereby charge under section 413 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused petitioner. Date of Order : Feb. 17 , 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. N.A.Naqvi, for the petitioner. Mr. J.R.Bijarnia, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner, against the order dated May 9, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jaipur City Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 61 of 2007 whereby charge under section 413 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Bhimraj Arya, SHO, Bani Park, Jaipur on July 30, 2007 registered a case FIR No. 132 of 2007 for offence under section 413 IPC and arrested the petitioner. After concluding investigation the police filed charge sheet under section 413 IPC against the accused petitioner. The trial court framed the charge against the accused petitioner for offence under section 413 IPC. Against this order present revision petition has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. N.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the accused petitioner contended that the contents of the complaint and charge sheet are taken as such, it does not constitute any offence. The ingredients of offence as alleged against the petitioner is not made out. The petitioner is charged only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. No legal evidence is available on record for framing charge against the accused petitioner for the offence under section 413 IPC. The charge has been framed against the petitioner only on the basis of the previous cases pending against him. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner was found in possession of stolen property or he had purchased the properly knowngly as stolen property. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Hari Bareth, Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments advanced by Mr. Naqvi. Mr. Bareth, argued that the trial court rightly framed the charge against the accused petitioner on the basis of the material available on record. This court in revisional power should not interfere with the order framing charge against the accused petitioner. Any comment by me on the merits is likely to prejudice the case of the accused or the prosecution. 5. This court in Om Prakash and another vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.1282 of 2003, decided on January 22, 2009 laid down following principles in regard to framing of charge by the courts below : (i) No reasons are required to be recorded when the charges are framed against the accused persons. (ii) In cases instituted otherwise than on a police report the Magistrate is required to write an order showing the reasons only if he is to discharge the accused. (iii)Only in a case where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone the court can discharge the accused. (iv) the High Courts to be loathe in interfering at the stage of framing the charges against the accused. (v) At the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. (vi) It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. (vii) At the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (viii) If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. (ix) The Supreme Court reminded the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. (x) Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law. 6. The Apex Court in Om Wati vs. State AIR 2001 SC 1507 held as under : “ ... it would not be safe at this stage to deprive the prosecution in proving its case on the basis of direct evidence, the statement of the deceased claimed to be admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act and the other documents including the inquest report allegedly disclosing the infliction of injuries on the person of the deceased which resulted in his death. The acceptance of the opinion of the doctors, as incorporated in the post mortem report for the cause of death of deceased being hepatic failure following viral hapatites' cannot be accepted on its face value at this stage. Therefore the order of the High Court would be illegal and liable tobe set aside.” “ The Supreme Court reminded the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.” 7. For these reasons the revision petition is dismissed. Since the main case has been dismissed, the stay application also stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/