[2025:RJ-JP:43514] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6198/2016 1. Mahendra @ Anmol S/o Shri Vedprakash, R/o Monkathi, Police Station Vidhuna, Distt. Oriya (Uttar Pradesh). 2. Sunita Trivedi D/o Narayan Trivedi, R/o House No. A103, Ashiyana Bagichi, Bhiwadi, Teh. Tijara, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 30/10/2025 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Tijara, Alwar, whereby a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order of framing charge dated 20.10.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tijara, Alwar has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 24.07.2014, one FIR was registered by the police authorities with the allegations that during the patroling duties of the police officials, it was found that the petitioners were carrying stone dust in dumper bearing No.RJ-02-GA-5022, however, there was no transportation permit or ravanna available with the petitioner in order to show that the stone dust was being carried by him in accordance with the legal papers. [2025:RJ-JP:43514] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-6198/2016] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police authorities before the concerned Magistrate and process was issued for appearance of the petitioners. The petitioners produced one Ravanna No.0229072 dated 23.07.2014 in order to show that the stone dust was being carried pursuant to legal documents and vide order/letter dated 14.08.2014, the learned Magistrate directed Station House Officer, Police Station Khushkheda, District- Alwar to verify the veracity and legality of such ravanna and to produce the report on the next date before the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that thereafter inquiry was conducted by the police authorities pursuant to order of the learned Magistrate and that the inquiry report was also placed by the police authorities before the concerned learned Magistrate. However, such inquiry report, which was obtained by the learned Magistrate during the inquiry process was although the part of the report but while passing order on the question of framing of charges on 20.10.2015, learned Magistrate did not consider the same and without there being application of any judicious mind, in quite mechanical manner and without assigning any reason whatsoever, charges under Sections 41 & 42 of Forest Act read with Section 379 & 120B of IPC were framed against the petitioners. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision petition pointing out that the order of the learned trial Court is totally non- speaking and a vague order; and the material which was already available on record has not been considered by the learned Magistrate while framing the charges. However, learned Revisional [2025:RJ-JP:43514] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-6198/2016] Court has also failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has given perverse finding that the inquiry report with regard to veracity and validity of ravanna is a defence document, which can be considered only after taking evidence of both the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that thus the inquiry report of the police authorities with regard to validity and veracity of ravanna, which was placed pursuant to the order of learned Magistrate himself has never been considered at any stage and had that been considered, probably the charges would not have been framed against the petitioners. Therefore, orders passed by the learned Court below are causing miscarriage of justice and same may be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the present criminal miscellaneous petition and submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate with regard to framing of charge has been duly examined by the learned Revisional Court in its jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., therefore, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition is in the form of second revision and at all not maintainable. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited and can be exercised only in the circumstances, where no other remedy was available to the petitioners. In the instant case, when the petitioners have already availed the remedy of revision and after remaining unsuccessful in such revision petition, he cannot file the instant miscellaneous petition. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that any document in defence of the accused-petitioners can be considered [2025:RJ-JP:43514] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-6198/2016] only at the relevant time after taking the evidence of both the parties on record, therefore, it was not to be considered by learned Magistrate at the time of framing the charge. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. As per Scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, after filing of charge-sheet, inquiry can also be made by the learned Magistrate with regard to the allegations levelled in the FIR and the Charge-sheet. In the present matter, admittedly during such inquiry process, when it was found that Ravanna No.0229072 dated 23.07.2014 was on record, therefore, directions were given by the learned Magistrate to the concerned S.H.O. for making inquiry into the veracity and validity of such documents. It is also a matter of record that thereafter, as per directions, inquiry was conducted by the concerned S.H.O. and inquiry report was also placed on record. Such inquiry report, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a document of defence and is rather a part of inquiry, which should have been considered by the learned Magistrate at the time of framing of the charge. However, bare perusal of the order dated 20.10.2015 passed by the learned Magistrate for framing of the charge would reveal that the order is totally cryptic, vague and evasive in nature, and no material whatsoever, which was already available on record, was considered by him and in quite mechanical and routine manner it was observed that the charges have been framed which have been denied by the petitioners and they prayed for trial of the matter. 12. The learned Revisional Court was under an obligation to examine the record of the learned trial Court, so as to scrutinize [2025:RJ-JP:43514] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-6198/2016] as to whether the order of framing the charge passed by the learned Magistrate is on the basis of material on record or not. However, instead of appreciating the argument of the accused- petitioners that the order has been passed without material on record, learned Revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by giving a finding that the inquiry report obtained by the learned Magistrate after inquiry on ravanna on record is a document of defence, which can be considered after completion of evidence. Such finding is totally against the Scheme of Criminal Prosecution as prescribed in Criminal Procedure Code and cannot be sustained. Thus, this Court finds that the learned Revisional Court has also not properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni & Anr. reported in AIR 1997 SC 987 has held that in the cases where learned Revisional Court's order causes miscarriage of justice or fails to prevent abuse of process of law, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can interfere in the order of learned Revisional Court. 14. As it is a settled proposition of law that the trial begins only from the date of framing of the charges, therefore, framing charges in quite mechanical manner would force the petitioners to face vexatious and frivolous trial, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise it jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned Revisional Court as well as order of framing charge dated 20.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tijara, Alwar are hereby, quashed and set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:43514] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-6198/2016] 15. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for passing a fresh order after considering the entire material including the inquiry report with regard to ravanna, which was already on record of the learned trial Court. 16. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/54