[2025:RJ-JP:41509] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2115/2019 Laxman Meena S/o Mattu Meena, R/o Bad Ramsar, Police Station Sadar Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Jaldhari Meena S/o Sanvaliya Meena, R/o Village Bad Ramsar, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Raj., Presently R/o 41, Govindnagar In Front Of Yamha Showroom, Sawai Madhopur, Raj. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 826/2023 Laxman Meena S/o Mattu Meena, Resident Of Bad Ramsar, Police Staion, Sadar Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur(Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Jaldhari Meena S/o Sanvaliya Meena, Resident Of Village Bad Ramsar, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur(Raj.) Presently Resident Of 41, Govind Nagar In Front Of Yamha Showroom, Sawai Madhopur(Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Heramb Saraswat, Mr. Fateh Ram Meena & Ms. Chanchal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 26/09/2025 1. These two revision petitions were preferred by petitioners accused Lakshman from two different orders passed in matter arising out of FIR No. 147/2018, [2025:RJ-JP:41509] (2 of 7) [CRLR-2115/2019] dated 6-6-2018, registered at Police Station Sadar, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. 2. SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 2115/2019 is filed by petitioner accused aggrieved from Order of cognizance dated 23-07-2019, passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur, after rejecting Final Closure Report (FR) submitted by Police. 3. SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 826/2023 is filed aggrieved from Order of Charge dated 07-6-2023, passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 182/2021, whereby petitioner accused Lakshman was charged under Sections 302 and 328 of IPC. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner accused has submitted that for incident of 22- 03-2018, a report is lodged by complainant Jaldhari Meena against five persons alleging that his uncle Harkesh @ Keshu was administered poison by present petitioner, and as a result he died. He submitted that the complainant is neither an eyewitness nor an incidental witness of any circumstance but still lodged a report after delay of more than three months. He further submitted that after investigation police has filed a closure report (FR) to the court clearly stating that deceased was unmarried and he was suffering from critical illness. He further submitted that in the entire evidence submitted by complainant, nowhere it was established that what was motive behind administering poison to deceased. He further submitted that without taking note of reasons assigned in closure report, the trial court has passed an order of cognizance and same is contrary to law. He also submitted that not a single document is filed on record to show that present petitioner was involved in committing murder of deceased Harkesh. 5. Learned Counsel has further referred order of charge passed by Learned Trial Court and submitted that the trial court has not considered the fact that the [2025:RJ-JP:41509] (3 of 7) [CRLR-2115/2019] deceased was suffering from critical illness and there is no evidence on record for trial against the petitioner accused. He also referred post-mortem report and submitted that nothing is found to show that deceased was administered poison, rather he expired due to cardio pulmonary arrest. He also submitted that the facts clearly indicate that deceased has filed a complaint during his lifetime against all his brothers and deceased was not getting any support from any of his family members. He also submitted that in order to reacquire land, sold by deceased Harkesh to present petitioner, the instant case is filed to pressurize present petitioner. He also referred concealment of facts by the complainant and submitted that the material on record is sufficient to show that no charge under section 302 IPC is made out as there is no motive behind murder. 6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Counsel for respondent complainant and Learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that accused has misused position and he administered poison to deceased with intent to grab his property. He also submitted that after order of cognizance, a charge has already been framed, therefore, one of the petition rendered infructuous. He further submitted that the truthfulness of allegations can only be tested during trial and not otherwise. 7. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and Learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material placed on record. 8. Respondent complainant Jaldhari Meena has lodged a complaint in the court of Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Gangapur City alleging administration of poison to his uncle Harkesh by five named persons including present petitioner resulting in his death on 22-03-2018. The complaint was sent for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of CRPC and on 6-06-2018, FIR under Sections 302, 328 and 120B IPC was registered by police. After investigation, police has filed a negative closure report (FR) on the ground [2025:RJ-JP:41509] (4 of 7) [CRLR-2115/2019] that the allegations are false and baseless. The complainant has filed a protest petition and further recorded statement of himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Gangapur City has rejected the closure report and on the basis of protest petition passed an order of cognizance against present petitioner on 23-07-2019. 9. In pursuant to summoning of present petitioner, he was arrested and further released on bail. The criminal case was committed to the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge and on 7-06-2023, Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Gangapur City has framed charge under Sections 302 and 328 IPC against present petitioner. 10.The material on record clearly indicate that for incident of 22-03-2018, a criminal complaint is filed after a substantial delay and report is registered with the intervention of learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The conclusion drawn by police after investigation clearly reflect that deceased Harkesh was suffering from critical illness as his lungs were infected and he was suffering from B.P. and other diseases. A copy of post- mortem report is also filed on record wherein no ante-mortem injuries were found and the medical board has opined that the cause of death is cardio pulmonary arrest but for administration of suspected poison, a final opinion was reserved till FSL examination. 11. Learned Judicial Magistrate in his order of cognizance on 23-07-2019 has referred FSL report, wherein it was found that aluminium phosphide was found from body of deceased. In order of charge dated 7-06-2023, learned Additional Sessions Judge has further referred FSL report wherein presence of aluminium phosphide was noticed. 12. The FSL report dated 27-11-2018 is also placed on record and it shows that portion of viscera from two pockets A and B gave positive test for presence [2025:RJ-JP:41509] (5 of 7) [CRLR-2115/2019] of aluminium phosphide. The presence of aluminium phosphide which is highly toxic and dangerous can only be found in viscera when deceased has consumed any poisonous substance in any manner. The allegation is upon present petitioner and reason is obvious that deceased has transferred property to the petitioner and deceased was not having any good relation with his brothers but veracity of allegations can only be considered during trial and not otherwise. 13.In case of Nupur Talwar Vs. CBI AIR 2012 SC 1921, an order of cognizance passed by the magistrate rejecting the closure report of CBI was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court and after considering the legal position, it was held that the Magistrate has to be satisfied about sufficient material for proceeding in the matter. But it is not necessary whether sufficient ground exists for conviction or not. After considering the entire material on record, sufficient grounds are available for the magistrate to take cognizance and the order passed by the magistrate on 23-07-2019 cannot be faulted for the reasons as mentioned by learned magistrate in impugned order. Therefore, the revision petition against order of cognizance is devoid of merits. 13. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:41509] (6 of 7) [CRLR-2115/2019] 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Having considered the material particularly FSL report as referred by Learned Additional Sessions Judge while framing the charge and also allegations in the statement made by complainant and other witnesses for administering poison, there are sufficient grounds to frame a charge against the petitioner, and the trial court has not committed any error while framing the charge. [2025:RJ-JP:41509] (7 of 7) [CRLR-2115/2019] 17. These petitions are devoid of merits and same are liable to be dismissed. 18. In view of discussion made hereinabove, Revision Petition No. 2115/2019 and Revision Petition No. 826/2023 are hereby dismissed. 19. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /29-30