[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jagmohan vs State And Anr on 12 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:22542]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4231/2017
Jagmohan S/o Late Shri Sampat Ram Ji Parihar, B/c Mali, Prop.
M/s. Sambhu Ram Sampat Ram, R/o- Sainik Gali, Merti Gate,
Jodhpur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan
2. Alok Singhvi S/o Late Shri Gopal Raj Singhvi, B/c Jain,
Prop. M/s. Alok Singhvi Enterprises, R/o- Umaid Bhawan
Palace Road, Near Lal Ji Handicraft, Infront Of
Krishneshwari Mahadev Temple, Jodhpur Raj.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4228/2017
Jagmohan S/o Late Shri Sampat Ram Ji Parihar, B/c Mali, Prop.
M/s. Sambhu Ram Sampat Ram, R/o- Sainik Gali, Merti Gate,
Jodhpur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan
2. Vandana Singhvi W/o Shri Alok Singhvi, B/c Jain, Prop. M/
s. Vandana Singhvi Enterprises, R/o- Umaid Bhawan
Palace Road, Near Lal Ji Handicraft, Infront Of
Krishneshwari Mahadev Temple, Jodhpur Raj. Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Alok Singhvi S/o Late Shri
Gopal Raj Singhvi, B/c Jain, R/o- Umaid Bhawan Palace
Road, Near Lal Ji Hanudicraft, Infornt Of Krishneshwari
Mahadev Temple, Jodhpur Raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4236/2017
Jagmohan S/o Late Shri Sampat Ram Ji Parihar, B/c Mali, Prop.
M/s Sambhu Ram Sampat Ram R/o Sainik Gali, Merti Gate,
Jodhpur Metro Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan
(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 08:39:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22542] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-4231/2017]
2. Alok Singhvi S/o Late Shri Gopal Raj Singhvi, B/c Jain,
Prop. M/s Alok Singhvi Enterprises, R/o Umaid Bhawan
Palace Road, Near Lal Ji Handicraft, Infront Of
Krishneshwari Mahadev Temple, Jodhpur Raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4237/2017
Jagmohan S/o Late Shri Sampat Ram Ji Parihar, B/c Mali, M/s
Sambhu Ram Sampat Ram, R/o Sainik Gali, Merti Gate, Jodhpur
Metro Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan
2. Alok Singhvi S/o Late Shri Gopal Raj Singhvi, B/c Jain,
Prop. M/s Alok Singhvi Enterprises, R/o Umaid Bhawan
Palace Road, Near Lal Ji Handicraft, Infront Of
Krishneshwari Mahadev Temple, Jodhpur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
Mr. Ravindra Singh, AGA
Mr. Aman Gaur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 27/03/2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 12/05/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed for quashing of the orders dated 16.05.2017 passed by
the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.5,
Metropolitan Jodhpur in Criminal Case Nos.534/2017 (CRLMP
No.4231/2017), 532/2017 (CRLMP No.4228/17), 533/2017
(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 08:39:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22542] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-4231/2017]
(CRLMP No.4236/2017) & 531/2017 (CRLMP No.4237/2017)
whereby the learned Magistrate stated substance of accusation on
him as well as the orders dated 14.11.2017 passed by the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal
Revision Nos.441/2017, 443/2017, 440/2017 & 438/2017
whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision petitions filed
by the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a complaint
under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed by the respondent No.2
against the petitioner and his son. It is an admitted fact that the
the disputed cheque was not signed by the accused Jagmohan,
but by his son, Sawan Parihar. The petitioner was summoned by
the learned trial Court after taking cognizance of the offence. At a
subsequent stage, vide orders dated 16.05.2017, substance of
accusation was stated to him and the matter was posted for
further proceeding in the trial Court. The petitioner made
challenge to the orders dated 16.05.2017 by way of filing the
aforesaid revision petitions, which were dismissed by the learned
appellate Court vide orders dated 14.11.2017. hence the instant
Misc. Petitions.
3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through
the orders impugned and the other material available on record.
4. To appreciate the legal issue involved, it is necessary to
reproduce Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, which reads as under:-
251. Substance of accusation to be stated.
– When in a summons-case the accused appears or is
brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the
offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him,
(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 08:39:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22542] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-4231/2017]
and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has
any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to
frame a formal charge.
5. Upon careful and meticulous consideration of the impugned
orders, along with a detailed review of the factual matrix of the
case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial
court’s action in stating the substance of the accusation to the
petitioner does not suffer from any material irregularity or legal
infirmity that would warrant interference under the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court. The learned revisional court, with due
judicial diligence, has examined the legality, propriety, and
correctness of the order passed by the trial court and has
recorded a concurrent finding in support of the dismissal of the
petition. In light of these findings, this Court is unable to discern
any error that would necessitate interference with the orders
passed by the lower courts. However, it is important to clarify on
the procedure under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C.), as it constitutes a distinct and specific stage in the
criminal trial process. Stating the substance of the accusation
under Section 251 Cr.P.C. is not a step where the merits of the
case are determined. Rather, it serves as an essential procedural
safeguard, ensuring that the accused is properly informed of the
charges against them. This step is different to the broader
framework established by Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C.,
which outline the procedures for framing charges in criminal
cases. Specifically, Section 251 Cr.P.C. requires the Magistrate to
state the substance of the accusation in clear terms to the
accused so that there remain no ambiguity and he would be able
(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 08:39:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22542] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-4231/2017]
to defend his case appropriately. This is a procedural requirement
aimed at giving the accused the opportunity to respond to the
charge and plead guilty or not guilty. It is not, however, a stage
for the court to evaluate the evidence in detail or determine the
guilt of the accused. That task is reserved for the trial Court to do
after having all material evidence on record.
6. It is important to distinguish the procedural function of
Section 251 Cr.P.C. from the full trial process. The function of
stating the accusation under Section 251 is merely to bring to the
attention of the accused the charges they are facing. The formal
framing of charges is addressed in Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C.,
which apply to Sessions Courts and Magistrate’s Courts,
respectively. The purpose of these sections is to ensure that
charges are framed only when there is a prima facie case,
supported by sufficient evidence, to proceed to trial. This is a
stage where the accused is appraised about the gist of allegations
against him. Therefore, in the context of the instant cases, the
learned trial court’s action in stating the substance of the
accusation does not represent a determination of the merits or
sufficiency of the evidence. It is a procedural step that does not
necessitate any immediate evaluation of the underlying evidence.
The mere fact that the trial court proceeded to state the substance
of the accusation and move forward to commence the trial does
not reflect any legal irregularity. Both the trial court and the
revisional court have followed the appropriate legal procedures,
and their concurrent findings cannot be deemed to be perverse or
manifestly incorrect. The contentions raised in the present petition
seek to re-agitate matters that have already been thoroughly
(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 08:39:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22542] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-4231/2017]
adjudicated upon by the lower courts. Essentially, the petition is
an attempt to invoke a second revisional jurisdiction under the
guise of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which is
impermissible in law. Section 482 Cr.P.C. confers upon the High
Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court or to secure the ends of justice. However, such powers must
be exercised with caution and only in exceptional circumstances
where the lower courts have committed an error that affects the
course of justice. The present petition does not present any such
exceptional circumstance and is therefore not an appropriate use
of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to make
interference in the orders under assail. This Court is of the view
that there is a concurrent finding of the two courts below, in which
no interference is warranted and the present Misc. Petitions are
nothing but a second revision petition in disguise of the Misc.
Petition and under different nomenclature which is barred by law
as provided under sub-clause(3) of the Section 397 Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, there is no force in the instant Misc. Petitions,
the same deserve to be and are hereby dismissed and the
proceedings in the trial court shall continue in accordance with the
law. The stay petitions also stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
2-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 08:39:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link