2025:HHC:10008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 248 of 2016 Reserved on: 28.03.2025 Date of Decision: 10.04.2025. Agya Ram and others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1- State. Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the order dated 9th June 2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amb, District Una (learned Trial Court) in a case titled State versus Saroj Kumari and others vide which the learned Trial Court framed charges against the petitioners (accused 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:10008 before the learned Trial Court) for the commission of offences punishable under section 147, 447, 323, and 504, read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner in which they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 447, and 504 of IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Rampal, had a dispute over the land with Aagya Ram, Rachhpal Singh and Harmesh, which was pending in the learned Trial Court. The informant had not cultivated Khasra number 882 and he sought Police assistance from the learned Trial Court. Police and Patwari visited the spot on 9th March 2013, in the presence of Tripta Devi Pradhan, Ramesh Chand Sharma Up-Pradhan and accused Agya Ram, Saroj Kumari, Harmesh and Manju Lata. Patwari disclosed that Khasra number 882 belonged to the informant. The informant was cultivating the land with the help of Sudarshan Kumar’s tractor on the date of the incident when Agya Ram, Harmesh, Rachhpal, Saroj Kumari, Manju Lata, Madhubala, Beena Kumari, Monika and Sushma Devi came to 3 2025:HHC:10008 the field and started beating the informant. The informant shouted for help and his wife Sushma Devi and mother Prakash Devi came to the spot. The accused also assaulted them. The informant, his wife and his mother sustained injuries. Mangalsutra and the earrings of the informant’s wife were lost in the incident. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 447, and 504 of the IPC after the completion of the investigation. Learned Trial Court took cognizance and ordered the putting of notice of accusation to the accused on 9th June 2016. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of putting the notice of accusation, the petitioners/accused filed the present revision petition asserting that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court NO.1, Amb, District Una had issued directions to Station House OfÏcer (SHO) Amb to implement status quo order issued by him and file a status report on or before 18th March 2013. SHO and other police ofÏcials visited the spot and directed the parties, not to change the nature of the land or cut any trees from the land. The land was vacant on the date of the incident. 4 2025:HHC:10008 The informant tried to cultivate the land despite the injunction order issued by the court and Hukamnama issued by SHO. Petitioner No. 1, asked the informant not to cultivate the land because of the injunction order issued by the court and Hukamnama issued by the SHO. The informant quarrelled with the petitioners and abused them. He filed a false FIR to harass the petitioners. Petitioner No. 2 lodged FIR No. 32 of 2013, but no action was taken by the police. The learned Trial Court erred in putting the notice of accusation to the accused as no case was made out. The allegations in the FIR were wrong and they do not constitute the commission of any cognizable offence, even if they are accepted as correct. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 4. I have heard Mr Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, Mr Ajit Sharma learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent no. 1/State and Mr Vishwas Kaushal learned counsel for respondent no. 2/informant. 5. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in putting the notice of accusation to the accused. A civil suit was 5 2025:HHC:10008 pending between the parties in which an order of status quo was issued. The Court had directed SHO to enforce the order of status quo. SHO issued a hukamnama to the parties directing them not to change the nature of the land. The informant violated the order of status quo issued by the competent court and the hukamnama issued by the police ofÏcer. Petitioner no. 1 requested the informant not to violate the order passed by the Court and hukamnama issued by the police ofÏcer, but he quarrelled with the petitioners and abused them. An FIR was lodged by petitioner No. 2 against the informant. The petitioners were acting in the exercise of their right of private defence and no case of unlawful assembly is made out. The other offences are exclusively triable by the Gram Panchayat and the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to put the notice of accusation to the accused. He prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. He relied upon Virender Kumar versus State of HP 2023:HHC:13587 in support of his submission. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent no.1/State submitted the allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet shows the commission of cognizable 6 2025:HHC:10008 offences. The learned Trial Court had rightly put the notice of accusation to the accused. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. Mr Vishwas Kaushal learned counsel for respondent no. 2/informant submitted that the land was in possession of the informant and he was cultivating it. This Court cannot look into the documents filed with the revision petition and has to examine the record of the learned Trial Court to determine the correctness of the order passed by the learned Trial Court. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court; hence he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, (2023) 7 SCC 633: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 653 that truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be seen at the time of framing of charges. It was observed: 11. The law on the issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a 7 2025:HHC:10008 case in which the trial court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after the filing of the charge sheet, an application for discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges, the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufÏciency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there are strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the court. 12. The law on the point has been summarised in a recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap [State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191: (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 286]. Relevant paras are extracted below: (SCC pp. 197-98, para 11) “11. … 11.1. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala [P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488], this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227CrPC. What is required to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application has been considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufÏciency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufÏcient ground to proceed, 8 2025:HHC:10008 he will frame a charge under Section 228CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court after the trial starts. 11.2. In the recent decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath [State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 109: (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 380], one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) speaking for the Bench has observed and held in para 25 as under: (SCC p. 526) ‘25. The High Court [Hiremath v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4970] ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721], adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held : (N. Suresh Rajan case [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721], SCC pp. 721- 22, para 29) 9 2025:HHC:10008 “29. … At this stage, the probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini-trial at this stage.” 10. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 that at the time of framing of the charge the Court has to see the material collected by the prosecution to determine whether a case has been made out for proceeding with the trial or not. It is not necessary to examine the defence of the accused. It was observed:- 7. It is trite law that the application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell on the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the 10 2025:HHC:10008 grounds are sufÏcient to proceed against the accused on the basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would sufÏce and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed. 11. It was further held that the accused has no right to produce the documents and the Court has to go through the ma- terial collected by the prosecution. It was observed: 8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge- sheet material only. 9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the charge- sheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments 11 2025:HHC:10008 only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the I.O. 10. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held: “29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post ofÏce and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused 12 2025:HHC:10008 has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini-trial at this stage.” 11. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227 Cr. P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. 12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of the prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial. 12. It was held that the higher Court could not look into the defence of the accused while deciding the revision petition. It was observed: “19. The plea or the defence when requiring to be proved during the course of trial is itself sufÏcient for framing the charge. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge has noticed that the explanation provided by the respondent-accused pertaining to the purchase of Shop No. 7 of Suman City Complex of Plot No. 19, Sector-11 from the loan borrowed and paid by the respondent was outside the check period and hence 13 2025:HHC:10008 the explanation provided by the respondent is a mere eyewash. This is an issue which has to be thrashed out during the course of the trial and at the stage of framing the charge mini-trial cannot be held. That apart the explanation offered by the respondent-accused with regard to buying of Maruti Wagon-R car, Activa scooter, purchase of a house, etc. according to the prosecution are all the subject matter of trial or it is in the nature of the defence which will have to be evaluated after trial.” 13. Therefore, it is impermissible to look into the documents filed with the revision and determine the correctness of the defence taken by the accused. 14. It was specifically stated in the complaint made to the police that the accused came together to the informant’s field and started beating him. When he shouted for help, his wife and mother reached the spot. The accused also gave beatings to them and they sustained injuries. These allegations constitute the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 323, and 504, read with section 149 of IPC and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court in putting the notice of accusation for the commission of aforesaid offences to the accused. 15. The pleas taken in the petition regarding the defence of the accused and the documents produced by them before this 14 2025:HHC:10008 Court cannot be looked into to determine the validity of the order framing the charges. 16. It was held by this Court in Virender Kumar (supra) that only Gram Panchayat can try the offences cognizable by it. This judgment does not apply to the present case because the offences punishable under Sections 149 and 147 are not triable by the Gram Panchayat. 17. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 18. The observation made hereinabove shall confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. 19. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 28th April, 2025. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 10th April, 2025 (Chander)