[2025:RJ-JP:41508] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2823/2024 1. Pappusingh@ Motisingh @ Rajendra Singh S/o Dashrath Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Dabich, Police Station- Phagi, District - Jaipur, Rajathan. 2. Sayarsingh S/o Prahlad Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Dabich, Police Station- Phagi, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Laxman Singh S/o Prahlad Singh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Dabich , Police Station- Phagi, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Mahendrasingh S/o Pappu Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o - Dabich , Police Station- Phagi, District - Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Yuvraj Singh @ Kuldeep S/o Laxman Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Dabich, Police Station-Phagi, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Hansa Devi W/o Sh. Sita Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o- Dabich, Police Station Phagi, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanmay Mathur and Ms. Vijeta Jain both for Mr. L.L. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Pradeep Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 26/09/2025 1. Instant appeal is preferred by the appellant, aggrieved from the order dated 12-08-2024, in Sessions Case No. 253/2023 (25/2017), State Vs. Pappu Singh and Others, by the Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA Act) Cases, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby a [2025:RJ-JP:41508] (2 of 6) [CRLAS-2823/2024] charge has been framed against the appellant under Sections 143, 341, and 323 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that a false complaint was lodged by complainant Hansa Devi regarding the land which belongs to the ancestors of the appellants. He further submitted that, as per the conclusion drawn by the police, the land in question belongs to Narayan Singh Rajput, and inherited by Prahlad Singh and Dashrath Singh, and the appellants are their descendants. He further submitted that the appellants are in possession of the said land, and nobody has ever ousted them from such possession. 3. He also submitted that the revenue dispute is pending and all relevant documents were brought to the notice of the investigating officer, to show bona fides of appellants. He further submitted that there is no charge of illegal encroachment or trespass against any of the appellants, thus complainant party were aggressors. 4. He referred to the material placed on record and submitted that even a caste certificate has not been filed on record, yet the trial court framed a charge under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. He also referred to the dispute between the parties and submitted that even the rights of Hansa Devi and Meera Devi over the land were not recognized by the revenue court, and their application for impleadment was dismissed by the ACM, Phagi, District Jaipur. Lastly, he submitted [2025:RJ-JP:41508] (3 of 6) [CRLAS-2823/2024] that the appellants were falsely charged for offences which they have not committed. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the Learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant, who submitted that the property in question was purchased by the complainant through a registered sale deed, and that were assaulted by the appellants on 17-10-2016. He further submitted that, after investigation, police filed a charge sheet against the appellants, and a criminal case cannot be closed merely on the ground that a revenue dispute is pending. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and Learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the material placed on record. 7. On the basis of a report dated 17-10-2016 lodged by Hansa Devi with her husband Sitaram, based on the purchase of land by registered sale deed dated 29-05-2009, it was alleged that the appellants assaulted them on 17-10-2016 and used abusive words with casteist slurs. The matter was investigated by the police, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all five appellants. 8. The trial court, after considering the arguments of the appellants as well as the prosecution, directed the framing of charges on 12-08-2024. 9. The material on record clearly indicates that the revenue suit filed by Prahlad Singh is pending, and an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by Hansa Devi and Meera Devi for impleadment was dismissed by the ACM, Phagi, District Jaipur, on 08-01-2013. A revision petition is thereafter filed before the Revenue Board. [2025:RJ-JP:41508] (4 of 6) [CRLAS-2823/2024] The record clearly shows that there is a serious dispute of possession over the land allegedly purchased by complainant Hansa Devi. 10. The investigation also suggests that the land in question belongs to Narayan Singh, and as per the sale deed executed by Nanda Singh as Power of Attorney holder of Jasrat Singh alias Dashrath Singh, half share in the land was sold, which is sufficient to show that the land in question is not partitioned. 11. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:41508] (5 of 6) [CRLAS-2823/2024] 12. 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 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. 13. 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. 14. Having considered the material on record, it is apparent that after investigation, police has filed a charge sheet, and the grounds raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellants are subject matter of evidence, and cannot be decided on merits at [2025:RJ-JP:41508] (6 of 6) [CRLAS-2823/2024] this stage merely by considering the material referred by the appellants. Hence, no case for interference is made out. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. As a result, the appeal file aggrieved from order dated 12.08.2024 is hereby dismissed. 17. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /33