HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.2069/2014 1. Joon Yool Yoo s/o Gan He Yoo R/o 18/1407, Inma Apartment Diechi-2, Dong, Seoul, Korea A.T.P. Chief Project Manager, Hyundai Engineering and Constructions Company Limited. 2. Park Woo Young s/o Park Kwang Woong R/o 102*701, Kyung Nam Apartments, Yeong Deong Po Dong 7 GA, Seoul, Korea Planning Manager, Hyundai Engineering and Constructions Company Limited. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan 2. Vradhi Chand, SHO Police Station Kunhadi, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 19.03.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1 (South) Kota, by which a cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 304 and 308 IPC. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.06, Kota, charges have been framed against the petitioners. 2. Aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. The connected petitions submitted by the co-accused Rajat Chattopadhyay, Upendra Narayan Singh and Rajan Kumar (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2069/2014] Srivastav i.e. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos.958/2016 and 1458/2016 have already been withdrawn by them vide order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court under the factual circumstances of the case that after framing of charges, statements of several witnesses were recorded and much progress has been achieved during the course of trial. 4. The order sheet dated 01.04.2026 passed by the court below indicates that till date, statement of PW-47 has been recorded. Perusal of the aforementioned order sheet further indicates that since the accused petitioners-Joon Yool Yoo and Park Woo Young are absconding, appropriate orders have been passed to procure their presence. 5. Even on merits also, based on the documents available on the record, a prima facie case is made out to proceed against accused-petitioners for the offences that they have been charged with. It is the settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charges, the prima facie case is required to be seen. Even on strong suspicion, charges can be framed. At the stage of framing of charges, the meticulous examination of evidence is not required to be done. The defence of the accused is not required to be appreciated. Hence, the Trial Court has not committed any error in framing of charges against the petitioner. After framing of the charges, the trial has proceeded and statements of as many as 47 witnesses have been recorded. The trial has reached to its fag end. Hence, no interference is required at this fag end of the trial. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2069/2014] 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned orders passed by the court below. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of with the expectation from the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to procure the presence of the absconding accused-petitioners and conclude the trial expeditiously, as early as possible, as the incident pertains to the year 2009 and more than 17 years have passed thereafter. 8. Stay application as well as all pending applications (if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/41