[2025:RJ-JP:44977] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1916/2025 Ganesh S/o. Shri Chiranji, R/o. House No. 161, Guadi, Village- Simir, Tehsil- Sapotra, District- Sawai Madhopur ----Accused Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ….Respondent 2. Hansraj S/o. Shri Moti Lal, R/o. Village- Donayacha, Police Station Malarana Doongar, District- Sawai Madhopur. ----Complainant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G.A HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 10/11/2025 This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 438 readwith Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 21.8.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 38/2025, whereby the charge has been framed against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the complainant-respondent lodged an FIR No. 5/2003 at Police Station Bahrawanda Kalan, District Sawai Madhopur for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against as many as 5 persons namely Shree Lal, Meetha Lal, Ramesh, Ganesh and Ramsigh. He further submits that the police filed challan against Shree Lal and investigation was kept pending against Meetha Lal, [2025:RJ-JP:44977] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1916/2025] Ramesh, Ganesh and Ramsingh under Section 173 (8) CrPC. Thereafter challan was also filed against Meetha Lal and other accused persons and trial commenced. The trial court passed the judgment dated 30.10.2006 qua accused Shree Lal and Meetha Lal and they were convicted for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. He further submits that the accused petitioner is illiterate. On 11.9.2022 when the police went to his house, the petitioner enquired into the matter and came to know about pendency of the criminal case relating to FIR No. 05/2003. He further submits that the petitioner himself surrendered before the court on 26.3.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody. He further submits that the police filed challan against the petitioner before the trial court on 22.4.2025 and the trial court passed the order dated 21.8.2025 framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was not even an iota of evidence to frame the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. He further submits that the order framing charge should be reasoned and speaking, but the trial court framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC in a mechanical and cursory manner. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Mishra Versus State of Orissa and Others reported in 2011 (2) SCC 689. [2025:RJ-JP:44977] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1916/2025] Learned Addl. G.A. has opposed the same and submits that the trial court has rightly passed the order dated 21.8.2025, therefore, no interference therewith is required by this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material on record. In the case of R.S. Mishra (supra), it has been held by their Lordships that: “21. As seen from Section 227 above, while discharging an accused, the Judge concerned has to consider the record of the case and the documents placed therewith, and if he is so convinced after hearing both the parties that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, he shall discharge the accused, but he has to record his reasons for doing the same. Section 228 which deals with framing of the charge, begins with the words “If, after such consideration”. Thus, these words in Section 228 refer to the “consideration” under Section 227 which has to be after taking into account the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith. These words provide an interconnection between Sections 227 and 227. That being so, while Section 227 provides for recording the reasons for discharging an accused, although it is not so specifically stated in Section 228, it can certainly be said that when the charge under a particular section is dropped or diluted (although the accused is not discharged), some minimum reasons in a nutshell are expected to be recorded disclosing the consideration of the material on record. This is because the charge is to be framed “after such consideration” and therefore, that consideration must be reflected in the order.” (Emphasis supplied by me) [2025:RJ-JP:44977] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1916/2025] In the instant case, on 21.8.2025, the trial court passed the following order: ^^,l-ih-ih- mifLFkrA eqy0 ts-lh- ls mifLFkrA cgl pktZ lquh xbZ ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr nLrkost ls eqy0 ds fo:) /kkjk 302] 201 Hkk-na-la- ds vkjksi izFke n`"V;k cuuk ik;s tkus ls mDr /kkjkvksa esa vkjksi i`Fkd ls fojfpr dj lquk;s x;s rks eqy0 us vijk/k ls bUdkj dj vUoh{kk pkghA lacaf/kr ewy i=koyh ryc dh tkosA i=koyh okLrs lk{; fnukad 06-09-2025 dks is’k gksA rc rd eqy0 dh ts-lh- vof/k c<kbZ tkrh gSA** Thus, no reason is found to have been reflected by the trial court in its order dated 21.8.2025 disclosing the consideration of the material on record and rather the charge for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC has been framed by the trial court against the petitioner prima-facie. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 21.8.2025 is legally not sustainable and deserves to be set-aside. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 21.8.2025 passed by the trial court is set- aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court with a direction to pass a fresh order framing charge against the accused petitioner, in accordance with law. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/61