[2025:RJ-JP:31275] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2327/2025 1. Pappuram (Pappu Saini) S/o Late Dedaram, R/o Panchayat Samiti Viratnagar Ke Samne, Viratnagar, Police Station Viratnagar, District Jaipur. 2. Geeta Devi W/o Pappuram, R/o Panchayat Samiti Viratnagar Ke Samne, Viratnagar, Police Station Viratnagar, District Jaipur, ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anees Khan for Mr. Sehban Naqvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 12/08/2025 1. Prayer for adjournment is rejected. 2. Instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 BNSS has been preferred by and on behalf of accused-persons, questioning the framing of charge vide order dated 31.06.2023 for offences under Section 420 & 406 IPC by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Viratnagar, District Jaipur whereagainst the criminal revision petition filed by petitioner has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 09.01.2025 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Shahpura, District Jaipur. 3. It appears from the record that petitioner no. 1 and Mr. Tek Chand Saini were real brothers and a plot was purchased by them [2025:RJ-JP:31275] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2327/2025] in joint name vide agreement dated 12.03.2003. Later on Tek Chand passed away in the year 2017. Complainant is his widow. The complainant lodged a criminal complaint against petitioners that after death of her husband, namely, Tek Chand Saini, petitioner No.1, in order to grab the immovable property, got transferred the disputed property in his wife's name petitioner No.2 through erstwhile registered owner of property and thereby has cheated the complainant as also committed criminal breach of trust. On such complaint, Judicial Magistrate directed to investigate into the matter and thereafter, FIR was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The trial Court vide order dated 31.06.2023, framed the charges for offence under Sections 406 & 420 IPC, against petitioners. 4. It appears that petitioners challenged the order of framing charge by way of filing criminal revision petition stating inter alia that order is non-speaking. This argument was considered by the Revisional Court on merits and it was observed that though the order of framing charges is not well speaking, yet from the evidence available on record, it is clear that the property in question was purchased through Agreement dated 12.03.2003 in the joint name of complainant's husband Tek Chand Saini and accused No.1-Pappuram (Pappu Saini), who were real brothers. It was observed that after death of Tek Chand Saini, accused- petitioner no.1 got a sale deed of that plot in favour of his wife i.e. accused No.2 Geeta Devi, through the erstwhile owner of property Mr. Chothu Lal. The Revisional Court observed that the accused- petitioners have committed cheating as well as criminal breach of [2025:RJ-JP:31275] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2327/2025] trust with complainant. It was also that at one hand, accused- petitioner has declined from agreement dated 12.03.2003, whereas admits to have electricity connection in the joint name. It was observed that the complainant's husband was real bother of accused-petitioner-Pappuram and after his death on 25.07.2017, he got transferred the plot in sole name of his wife. On the basis of such evidence and material available on record, Revisional Court observed that sufficient material was available before the trial Court to frame the charges of offences under Sections 406 & 420 IPC, hence, merely on account of not assigning the reasons for framing charges, the order passed by the trial Court is not liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed on merits vide order dated 09.01.2025. Hence, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred by accused-petitioners. 5. This Court having perused the order of Revisional Court finds that the Revisional Court has considered the revision petition on merits and rightly observed that order of framing charge, need not to be well speaking and reasoned. It is well established principle of law that if sufficient evidence and material is available on record to frame the charges to the satisfaction of trial Court, the charges may be framed. The evidence need not to be appreciated in detail and on the anvil of its sufficiency to convict the accused for such offences for which charges have been framed. On such parameters, order of framing of charge by the trial Court vide order dated 13.06.2023 may not be held faulty. Moreover, the Revisional Court has looked into the entire evidence and then [2025:RJ-JP:31275] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2327/2025] observed that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charge. 6. It is trite law as expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460] that at the stage of framing charges, evidence available in the charge-sheet, is not required to be appreciated in the tune to find the accused-petitioner guilty for the offences. Even the charges can be framed on the basis of suspicion. Applying such ratio recidendi on the case in hand, this Court does not have any reason to invoke its inherent/ extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, to quash the impugned orders. 7. As a result, the present criminal misc. petition is devoid of substance and same is hereby dismissed. 8. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/13