[2025:RJ-JP:19767] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1531/2017 Raghu Sharma S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, R/o 620, Jat Kai Kuanka Rasta, Mahadevji Ki Gali, Purani Basti, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p. 2. Puraram Chaudhary S/o Shri Dhannalal Jat, R/o Hotel Neelkamal, Bus Stand, Bhinmal Distt. Jalore Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 21/04/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner complainant aggrieved from order dated 04.07.2017 in criminal revision petition no. 16/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge no.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby revision petition filed by respondent No.2 (accused) was allowed and order of charge dated 07.10.2015 in criminal case no. 374/2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate no.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur was set aside and respondent accused Puraram Chaudhary was discharged from charge under Section 420 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner complainant has filed a criminal complaint before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate no.4, Jaipur City against Mukul Sharma and Puraram [2025:RJ-JP:19767] (2 of 8) [CRLR-1531/2017] Chaudhary about sale of plot no. 1/H/316, Indra Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur after receipt of advance money with intention to cheat. On the basis of this complaint, FIR no. 293/2008 was registered at P.S. Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (South). After investigation police has filed a charge-sheet against Puraram Chaudhary under Section 420 of IPC. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate no.9, Jaipur Metropolitan while considering the charge on 07.10.2015 has directed to frame charge against respondent no.2 (accused) under Section 420 of IPC. The respondent accused Puraram Chaudhary has filed a criminal revision petition before learned Sessions Judge and same was transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge no.9, Jaipur Metropolitan. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the defence of respondent accused found that the essential ingredient to constitute offence under Section 420 IPC were not made out, and the trial court has committed serious error while framing the charge under Section 420 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner while placing reliance upon grounds of revision petition has submitted that in the instant case after detailed investigation by police, a charge-sheet has been filed and the trial court after considering the material on record has framed the charges. He further referred the order of revisional court and submitted that the revisional court has considered defence of respondent accused and conducted a mini inquiry, which is not permissible under the law. He also referred the material on record and submitted that under the provision of Section 239/240 of Cr.P.C. the court can consider the material placed on record, forwarded by police in support of charge-sheet but it cannot consider the version of defence. He also submitted [2025:RJ-JP:19767] (3 of 8) [CRLR-1531/2017] that the trial court following the procedure has framed the charge but revisional court while dealing the revision petition as if it is considering an appeal from final order, has expressed its opinion on merits which is impermissible under the law. He further submitted that the material on record clearly indicate that two persons were involved firstly Mukul Sharma and secondly present respondent no.2 and ultimately, the agreement was executed by respondent no.2 and the revisional court only on the ground that if there is suspicion and any defence in favour of accused then the charge cannot be framed, and discharged the petitioner accused. He further referred impugned order and submitted that a detailed enquiry is permissible at the stage of charge and the order of revisional court is contrary to settled proposition of law, therefore, same is illegal and perverse. 4. No one was present on behalf of respondent accused though, service is complete and a power has already been filed on behalf of respondent accused. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the case of petitioner complainant. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the original record summoned from trial court and revisional court. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgments in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Priya Sharan Maharaja AIR 1997 SC 2041 and Smt. Omwati & Anr. Vs. State and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 1507. 7. In case of State of Maharashtra (supra), considering provision of Section 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. Hon’ble Supreme Court placing reliance upon judgment in case of Niranjan Singh Karam [2025:RJ-JP:19767] (4 of 8) [CRLR-1531/2017] Singh Punjabi vs Jitendra Bhimaraj Bijje (1990) 4 SCC 76 has held that the Court may for limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be accepted even at the initial stage to accept all that the prosecution case as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. It was held that at the stage of charge the revisional court cannot seek independent corroboration of allegations. 8. In case of Smt. Omwati (supra), while considering the provision under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. it was held that the revisional court should not interfere at initial stage of framing of charge merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons. While placing reliance upon a Three Judge Bench judgment in case of Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja AIR 1980 SC 52 has observed that at the initial stage of framing of charge, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The Court has therefore to consider the question of framing charges of general consideration on basis of the material placed before it by the investigating agencies. 9. At this stage, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposed to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of proof has to be applied finally before finding an accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. Even on the basis of a strong suspicion founded on materials before it, the Court can for a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that event be justified in framing the charge against the accused in [2025:RJ-JP:19767] (5 of 8) [CRLR-1531/2017] respect of the commission of offence alleged to have been committed by him. 10. The principles of law at the stage of charge were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. :(1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 398. It was held that 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. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. 11. Again in case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering several judgments on the issue in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has held that the trial court while dealing with an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the [2025:RJ-JP:19767] (6 of 8) [CRLR-1531/2017] 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. At this stage, 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. 12. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : (2021) 11 SCC 191 and relied upon in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023 INSC 555), it was held that at the stage of framing of charge and/or considering discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. A defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and / or at the stage of discharge of application. 13. A perusal of order dated 07.10.2015 passed by learned trial court indicate that on the basis of material forwarded by police the trial court has drawn the conclusion that the plot no. 1/H/316 Indra Gandhi Nagar was allotted to Puraram Chaudhary and with dishonest intention appointed Mukul Sharma as power of attorney and he received ₹15,00,000/- from the complainant. The revisional court at the stage of revision has observed that if there is suspicion or evidence collected by investigating officer is not direct, then a charge cannot be framed. 14. The revisional court has further observed that there is no direct agreement between complainant and accused. The disputed agreement was executed on 25.04.2008 by Mukul Sharma and there is no privity of contract between complainant and accused. A [2025:RJ-JP:19767] (7 of 8) [CRLR-1531/2017] fact is also available on record that this plot was allotted to Puraram Chaudhary and a demand draft of ₹12,03,100/- which was deposited in Rajasthan Housing Board as sale consideration for the plot was in fact paid from bank account of complainant (present petitioner). 15. Learned Revisional Court has failed to appreciate the purpose of power of attorney, which is considered as legal document, which allows the executant to authorize another person (agent or attorney) to act on his behalf. The purpose of power of attorney may be for enter into a transaction relating to property or any other financial matter or in other matter to do a specific act. The power of attorney is a legal document and an agent or attorney acting under the authority of power of attorney is sufficient to bound executant. 16. The law over the point was misunderstood by learned revisional court and without considering the provision of law at the stage of charge, the revisional court has passed an order as if it is conducting mini trial on the basis of material collected by the police. In the instant case, after a detailed investigation the police has filed a charge-sheet against respondent accused. The police has further recorded the statement of Mukul Sharma on 10.08.2009. The police has also recovered power of attorney executed by respondent accused in favour of Mukul Sharma, to bound respondent No.2. 17. Having considered the entire material on record and also the legal position the revisional court has exceeded its authority while allowing revision petition and discharging the respondent accused. [2025:RJ-JP:19767] (8 of 8) [CRLR-1531/2017] Thus, the order of revisional court is perverse, illegal and contrary to settled cannons of law, and same is liable to be set aside. 18. As a result, the instant S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 04.07.2017 in criminal revision petition no. 16/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge no.9, Jaipur Metropolitan is set aside. The order of framing charge dated 07.10.2015 in criminal case no. 374/2015 is hereby affirmed. The trial court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law. 19. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 09.06.2025. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /85