[2025:RJ-JP:17729] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 303/2019 1. Arun Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vill. Majari Kalan Teh. Neemrana Dist. Alwar Raj. 2. Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav S/o Ramanand, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Vill. Majari Kalan Teh. Neemrana Dist. Alwar Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj. 2. Karan Singh S/o Shri Jai Dayal, R/o Vill. Majari Kalan Teh. Neemrana Dist. Alwar Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Verma for Mr. Dinesh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 15/04/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner accused Arun Kumar and Rajendra Singh Yadav aggrieved from order dated 19.12.2018 in sessions case no. 7/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge no.1, Behror, District Alwar in a matter arising out of FIR no. 72/2004 P.S. Mandan, District Alwar, wherein police has filed a negative closure report (FR) before learned ACJM No.1, Behror. On a protest petition and recording statement of witnesses under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. ACJM No.1, Behror has taken cognizance against the petitioners and committed the matter to learned Additional Sessions Judge. After considering the [2025:RJ-JP:17729] (2 of 5) [CRLR-303/2019] material available on record, including statement of witnesses, learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed framing of charge under Sections 323, 341, 307, 504 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. During pendency of this petition, a status report is called from the trial court it has come to notice that after order of charge the charge was actually framed on 15.02.2023 and thereafter, the matter has been fixed for prosecution evidence. 3. Herein this case, the matter pertains to framing of charge wherein the trial court has also framed charge under Section 307 IPC. A perusal of record indicate that after registration of FIR the matter was investigated by police and police has closed the matter with negative closure report. As per police report, no case is made out but after recording statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the cognizance was taken by the trial court. The sessions court has considered the material forwarded along with final closure report and also considering the material concluded that prima facie case is made out to frame charge. The order is based under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and both are reproduced as under:- “227. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 228. If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which - (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for [2025:RJ-JP:17729] (3 of 5) [CRLR-303/2019] trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, [or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate]. (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to accused, and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.” 4. 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. 5. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:17729] (4 of 5) [CRLR-303/2019] 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 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. 6. 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. 7. Having considered the legal position as mentioned hereinabove, particularly the fact that the use of fire arms is alleged by witnesses in the matter. The statement of witnesses as referred by police and also recorded by trial court indicate that the witnesses have alleged an attempt of murder by petitioners accused. 8. In view of material available on record and also legal position as explained hereinabove, there is no perversity or illegality in the [2025:RJ-JP:17729] (5 of 5) [CRLR-303/2019] order passed by the trial court, therefore, the revision petition sans merit and same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Hence, the instant criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. 10. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /92