[2026:RJ-JP:30386] HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6234/2020 CNR: RJHC020744742020 | URN: CRLMP / 10377U / 2020 Roshani Devi W/o Shri Suresh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Sultana Tehsil Chirawa Dist. Jhunjhunu ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Smt. Meena wife of Shri Shrawan Kumar D/o Late Shri Liladhar, resident of Sultana, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlendra Sihag For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Gajendra Bhawan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 04/08/2026 1. The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is preferred by the petitioner-accused in relation to FIR No. 306/2012 dated 9th July 2012 registered at PS Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, wherein a charge sheet has been filed and the learned ACJM, Jhunjhunu has taken cognizance and further framed charge against the petitioner on 11th December 2019 in Criminal Case No. 60/2018 (750A/2016) titled as State of Rajasthan versus Prithvi Singh and Anr. 2. The present petitioner has filed a criminal revision before learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, which was dismissed on 21st August 2020 and to challenge the order to frame charge and [2026:RJ-JP:30386] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-6234/2020] revisional order, this miscellaneous petition is filed before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of cognizance itself suffers from infirmity that the trial Court has not considered the entire material on record while taking cognizance and the first available opportunity before the petitioner was to agitate the issue under Sections 239 and 240 of CrPC and petitioner has pleaded before the trial Court that the signature on the proceedings of Village Panchayat were not of the present petitioner and same is affirmed by police investigation. He submits that after filing of investigation report, the police has not forwarded the present petitioner to face trial but the trial Court has considered issue of cognizance and the trial Court has initially refused to take cognizance against the petitioner. He further submits that the complainant has filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge and the matter is remitted back and ultimately cognizance was taken and charge was framed. He submits that the charge has to be framed either on basis of role and involvement of the present petitioner or grave suspicion but in absence of both the elements, a charge cannot be framed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was working as a Panch of Village Panchayat and in a proceeding, the petitioner has participated as a Panch but there is no criminality behind the participation as a Panch. He submits that at the most, the petitioner has signed the proceedings and the signing of proceedings cannot be treated as a criminal conspiracy for issuance of any patta to cheat complainant. He submits that the role and involvement has not been proved from the [2026:RJ-JP:30386] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-6234/2020] investigation but without any additional evidence the trial Court has framed a charge and petitioner will face a trial which is not based upon principle of law, therefore, this is an abuse of process of law. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the complainant and learned public prosecutor. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the trial is about to conclude and after conclusion, the final result will come. He submitted that at the stage of fag-end, it is not permissbile to quash the charge. He submits that the material placed on record and relied by the trial Court and the revision Court are sufficient to frame charge against the petitioner. He submits that the present petitioner was a part of criminal conspiracy hatched with other persons to cause wrongful loss to complainant and the present petitioner is charged with aid of Section 120B IPC, which is a subject matter of evidence. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned public prosecutor, and perused the material placed on record. 8. Non-applicant/complainant has filed a criminal complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of CrPC and on basis of allegation mentioned in complaint, FIR No. 306/2012 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC was registered. After investigation, police has filed charge sheet against Prithvi Singh and Others but not against the present petitioner for committing offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 453, 218 and 120B of IPC. The complainant has filed an application under Section 190 of CrPC, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 28.11.2016 but the complainant [2026:RJ-JP:30386] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-6234/2020] has preferred a Criminal Revision No. 199/2016, which was considered by the revisional Court on 20th January 2018, and the order to dismiss the application under Section 190 was set aside and matter is remitted back to the trial Court. The trial Court has passed an order of cognizance against the petitioner on 5th December 2018. Thereafter, considering the arguments on charge under Sections 239 and 240 of CrPC, the trial Court has framed charge on 11.12.2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 453, 218 and 120B of IPC. The petitioner has preferred a Criminal Revision No. 45/2020 before learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, which was dismissed on 21st August 2020. 9. The material on record also indicate that two more accused who were charged by learned trial Court vide order dated 11th December 2019 have also preferred criminal revision and same was transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jhunjhunu. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jhunjhunu while considering Criminal Revision No. 1/2020 (65/2020) (CIS No. 109/2020) has allowed the revision on 4th May 2022 and discharged the accused Mahendra Singh and Jagdish Kumar Sharma. 10. The material which was considered by the revisional Court while considering the arguments of Mahendra Singh and another clearly indicate that after adopting the process as prescribed, the patta was issued. The material also indicate that after filing of application of Prithvi Singh, Village Panchayat has appointed Aslam, Mohammed Farooq and Meva Devi as Panch Commissioner and on basis of report of these persons, the Village Panchayat has acted in its meeting. The material also indicate that Budh Singh, [2026:RJ-JP:30386] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-6234/2020] Karani Singh, Mohammed Liyaqat have filed inspection report, wherein they have inquired from neighbourhood and the neighbours have mentioned that the land belongs to Prithvi Singh. The material also indicate that Prithvi Singh has filed an application for electricity connection and on basis of said application, Prithvi Singh was granted domestic electric connection which was installed in his Nohra. The material also shows that Prithvi Singh has claimed that his possession is 50-60 years old and no one has objected pursuant to notice inviting for objection. 11. The police investigation also reflect that the patta was issued between 30th July 1998 to 30th March 1999 and the present petitioner has not signed the proceeding rather someone else has signed on behalf of Roshani. The police has not found any criminal conspiracy of present petitioner and on basis of evidence, the police has forwarded a charge sheet against some of the accused named in FIR, but not against present petitioner. 12. It is duty of the trial Court to consider the principle to frame charge and if there is no material to frame charge for a particular offence, then the charge should not be framed. The trial Court is under an obligation under Section 239 of CrPC (corresponding provision under Section 262 of BNSS) to consider discharge of an accused before framing of charge. In order to frame a charge, it is necessary that there is a prima facie material on record which can be proved against the petitioner during trial though may not be sufficient to convict but in the instant case, there is no material and the trial Court and the revisional Court both have not considered the material on record and without considering the [2026:RJ-JP:30386] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-6234/2020] material, have considered the case of prosecution in mechanical manner. 13. It has been argued that the trial is at fag end and likely to conclude. There is no time frame with regard to trial is concerned but when the petitioner is challenged the revisional order in year 2020 and this petition is pending for almost six years, then same has to be decided on merits as the petition has not been rendered infructuous merely on the ground of delay. The trial is still at the stage of prosecution evidence, therefore, this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CRPC is liable to be allowed. 14. In view of discussion made hereinabove, this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC is hereby allowed and the order to frame charge dated 11.12.2019 and further Revisional Court's order dated 21.08.2020 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is discharged from offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 453, 218 and 120-B of IPC. 15. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 74/MR