Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5941 of 2000 Petitioner :- Kuldeep Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharam Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dharam Pal Singh for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents.
This writ petition has been filed for a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 28.8.2000 passed by VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Budaun/respondent No.3 and charges dated 23.10.1998 and impugned order dated 29.9.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Budaun and all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3912 of 1997(State vs. Kuldeep Srivastava) under section 409 IPC. Further prayer is to issue writ of mandamus restraining respondent Nos. 1 & 2 from proceeding against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 3912 of 1997.
The facts of the case are that FIR was lodged against Kuldeep Srivastava under Section 409 IPC alleging that several files of police record were missing and during enquiry it was found that this faulty act was done by this accused. Case was registered and after investigation charge sheet was filed. On 29.9.1998 accused Kuldeep Srivastava was heard on the point of charge and it was found that prima facie sufficient evidence was available on record for framing of charge under Section 409 IPC and thereafter charge was framed vide order dated 23.10.1998. Accused/petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 306/98 against framing of charge, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.8.2000 passed by VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Budaun.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no sufficient evidence against the petitioner for framing of charge or submitting charge sheet and order passed on 13.10.1998 and 28.10.2000 are illegal, arbitrary and without evidence.
Section 240 Cr.P.C.deals with framing of charge which is quoted below:
"Section 240. Framing of charge.
(1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."
In the case of Shoraj Singh Ahlawat vs. State of U.P., AIR 2013 SC 52 it has been held by Supreme Court that at the stage of framing of charge, the Magistrate has only to see on the basis of material on record, whether there is ground to presume that the accused has committed the offence. Even strong suspicion about existence of facts constituting the offence is sufficient to refuse discharge.
In the case of Radhamohan Agarwalla vs. State, 1986(2) Crimes 590, 592(Ori) Court has held that "strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads a Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
In this case, accused petitioner was heard and Magistrate has found prima facie sufficient evidence to frame charge and he was competent to do so. Hence this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in framing of charge and the revisional Court has also rightly dismissed the revision filed against impugned order. No interference is required in the orders impugned in this writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 P.P.