[2025:RJ-JP:30943] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1347/2025 Mohammed Hanif Chaudhary Son Of Shri Abdul Rahman, R/o Chaudhary Farm House Patan Road Police Thana Kotwali Jhalawar. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 11/08/2025 1. Accused-petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, to challenge the order dated 07.01.2022, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Kota, framing charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 379 & 120-B IPC readwith Section 4/21 of MMDR Act, so also the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases No.1 Kota, dismissing criminal revision petition filed thereagainst and affirming the order of framing charges dated 07.01.2022. 2. Counsel for petitioner has argued that charges have been framed without application of judicial mind and without having any satisfaction about availability of the sufficient material on record, to frame the alleged charges. Petitioner was not found in the [2025:RJ-JP:30943] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1347/2025] trucks in question at the spot and merely on the ground that petitioner happens to be registered owner of trucks, he has been implicated in the present criminal case. In such circumstances, charges framed by the trial and affirmed by the revisional Court, requires interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent/ extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 3. Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments of counsel for petitioner and states that from bare perusal of order dated 07.01.2022, it is apparent that the trial Court framed the charges, after appreciation of the evidence, which came on record in the charge-sheet and after recording its satisfaction, to have sufficient material for framing charges. Further, the revisional Court has also examined the correctness/ propriety/ legality of the order and dismissed the revision petition on merits. Hence, no interference is required. 4. Having considered the rival contentions of counsel for both parties, and on bare perusal of the impugned orders, this Court finds that indisputably, petitioner is the registered owner of the two trucks, which have been observed to be bearing similar number of registration plate. The case was registered for transportation of illegal gravel. It has been found during investigation that by issuing of one ravanna, gravel was being transported in two trucks, having similar registration number. As far as petitioner is concerned, he is the registered owner of both the trucks. 5. Further, it transpires that the persons, who were carrying illegal gravel in the trucks and driving the trucks, were intercepted and they were found to be in close connection with petitioner via [2025:RJ-JP:30943] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1347/2025] their respective mobile phones. The details of their inter se talks through mobile phones, were noted by the Investigating Officer, during course of investigation. 6. In view of above, this Court finds that the trial Court framed charges against the petitioner, after appreciation of the material evidence available on record and the charge-sheet and after recording its satisfaction, to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged criminal charges. The revisional Court, too, within its jurisdiction, examined the correctness/ legality of the order impugned and held that there is sufficient evidence on record to frame charges. 7. It is trite law as expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460] that at the stage of framing charges, evidence available in the charge-sheet, is not required to be appreciated in the tune to found the accused petitioner guilty for the offences. Even the charges can be framed on the basis of suspicion. Applying such ratio recidendi on the case in hand, this Court does not have any reason to invoke its inherent/ extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, to quash the impugned orders. 8. As a result, the present criminal misc. petition is devoid of substance and same is hereby dismissed. 9. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/7