Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra @ Gutti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
1
CRR No.2634/2024
I N T H E H I G H C O U RT O F M A D H YA P R A D E S H
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
CRIMINAL REVISION No.2634 OF 2024
Devendra @ Gutti & Others
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
..................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Jain - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri K.S. Patel - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2.
....................................................................................................
Reserved on : 27.03.2025
Pronounced on : 08.04.2025
.................................................................................................
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the
applicants/accused assailing order dated 24.04.2024 (Annexure-P/2)
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Damoh (MP) in Session Trial
No.35/2024 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Devendra @ Gutti and
Others) by which charges for commission of offence under Sections
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
2
CRR No.2634/2024
304 part-II and 202 of IPC have been framed against the
applicants/accused.
2. The facts, in short, giving rise to the present revision are that on
07.10.2022, complainant Rohit Patel S/o Mukundi Patel (Kurmi)
informed the police concerned about missing of his brother Sanjay @
Mani Kurmi alleging that 05.10.2022 at around 07:30 pm, his brother
had left the home in Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No. MP-51-
CA-1644 for immersion of Devi Idol. Thereafter, despite search, he
could not be traced out. Information about missing person was given;
same was recorded in Police Chowki Bilai, Police Station Hindoriya,
District Damoh. It is alleged that during the rescue operation on
09.10.2022 at around 09:20 pm before the witnesses, Sanjay Kurmi
was found dead in his Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.MP-
51-CA-1644 and same was found fallen in the well having no
boundary built in the agriculture field belonging to Bharat Patel
(Kurmi). Dastayabi Panchnama was prepared.
3. In the course of enquiry and investigation, it revealed that on
the date of incident, present applicants Devendra @ Gutti, Laxman @
Lakkhu, Champa @ Champala and Bhagwat consumed liquor with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
3
CRR No.2634/2024
Sanjay @ Mani (since deceased) in the village itself and thereafter,
they all again consumed liquor in Hindoriya. When they were on way
back, Sanjay @ Mani being over drunk was not in a position to drive
the vehicle properly. But, the aforesaid persons did not oppose the
driving of vehicle by him and failed to inform about his condition to
his relatives/parents. It is also alleged that Sanjay @ Mani was not
able to drive the vehicle/car as he was in drunken condition and was
also not a good driver, but applicants had compelled him drove the
vehicle. Vehicle had over turned in the agricultural field, but they all
put the vehicle in proper condition. It is alleged that despite knowing
that a well without boundary is situated in front of deceased’s car,
failed to stop him from driving the vehicle/car and as soon as Sanjay
started vehicle, he alongwith his vehicle fell down in the well.
Accused persons instead of making any attempt for his rescue fled
away from the spot and did not inform anyone about the incident. FIR
was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against
the accused persons for commission of offence under Sections 304
part-II, 202, 203, 120-B, 34 of IPC before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
4
CRR No.2634/2024
4. Learned JMFC in its turn committed the case to the Court of
Sessions as the offences are triable by the Court of Sessions.
5. Learned Sessions Judge, Damoh by impugned order dated
24.04.2024 framed charges against applicants. Being aggrieved from
the order of framing the charge, applicants/accused filed the present
criminal revision assailing the impugned order stating that the
accident occurred due to rash & negligent driving by the deceased
himself and no charge under Section 304 part-II of IPC is made out.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that
deceased was having driving license to drive the vehicle, therefore, no
offence under Section 304 part-II of IPC is made out. Deceased was
having driving license. He was registered owner of the Maruti Alto
vehicle. Deceased himself by driving the vehicle rashly & negligently
fell into the well alongwith vehicle; hence, no charge is made out for
commission of offence under Section 304 part-II of IPC. It is
submitted that admittedly, applicants have not given any information
about falling the vehicle in well and the presence of deceased in the
vehicle; therefore, the charge only under Section 202 at the most is
made out. Thus, learned Trial Court was not justified in framing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
5
CRR No.2634/2024
charges for commission of offence under Sections 304 part-II of IPC.
Hence, it is prayed that the present criminal revision may be allowed
and the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court about
charge framed with regard to offence under Section 304 part-II of IPC
may be set-aside.
7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that
as per the contents in the charge-sheet, incident has occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased himself,
therefore, no charge under Section 304 part-II of IPC is made out
against the applicants. It is argued that there is insufficient material to
frame the charge for commission of offence under Section 304 part-II
of IPC, therefore, charge framed under Section 304 part-II of IPC by
learned Sessions Judge is without any basis and there is no
material/evidence to show a prima-facie case for framing of charges
and proceeding further against the applicants/accused as materials
attracting charges under Section 304 part-II of IPC against the
applicants/accused is completely missing. Hence, it is prayed that the
present criminal revision may be allowed and the order framing
charges passed by the learned Sessions Judge may be set-aside.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
6
CRR No.2634/2024
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted
that from the material available on record, it is apparent that
applicants had gone with the deceased and first; they all consumed
liquor in the village itself and thereafter, in Hindoriya also and despite
having knowledge that driver (since deceased) is over drunk and is
not in a position to drive the vehicle, applicants compelled him to
drove the vehicle. It is contended that vehicle had over turned, but
they all put the vehicle in right position and again compelled the
deceased to drive vehicle and did not inform the parents/relatives of
the deceased about his condition; on the contrary, they compelled him
to drive the vehicle having knowledge that there is a well without
boundary in the agricultural field and vehicle may fall in it, even then
they asked the deceased to drive the vehicle due to which vehicle with
deceased fell in the well. Thus, the act of the applicants/accused is full
of knowledge and deliberate. It is further contended that
applicants/accused despite incident did not inform the parents and
relatives of the deceased about the incident and concealed the
information, therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly framed the
charge for commission of offences under Section 304 part-II and 202
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
7
CRR No.2634/2024
of IPC and no interference is required with the order framing the
charge by the Sessions Judge.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
perused the material available on record alongwith the case diary.
10. In order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the
parties, the issue that arises for consideration in the present criminal
revision is that whether there exists a prima facie case for framing
charges.
11. It is settled that at the stage of framing the charges, the Court
has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose
of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused
has been made out and where the materials placed before the Court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a
charge and proceeding with the Trial. No roving inquiry into pros and
cons of the matter and weighing the evidence is necessary as if the
trial is conducted.
12. If on the basis of materials on record, Court could come to the
conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
8
CRR No.2634/2024
a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court
were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it
can frame the charge. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a
charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone
into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be
accepted as true at that stage.
13. At the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the
Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there
is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While
deciding the question of framing of charge in a criminal case, the
Court is not required to be applied exactly the standard of test and
judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding
regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused.
14. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs.
Ramesh Chander; (2012) 9 SCC 460, has laid down the principles
and procedures to be followed while framing of charge and held as
below :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
9
CRR No.2634/2024
“17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the
trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is
discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these
provisions, the court is required to consider the ‘record of the case’
and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties,
may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court
and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and
ingredients of the Section exists, then the Court would be right in
presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and
frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a
presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation
to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading
to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It
may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There is a fine
distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of the
Code. There is a fine distinction between the language of Sections
227 and 228 of the Code. Section 227 is expression of a definite
opinion and judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative.
Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should
form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing
an offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms
of Section 228 of the Code.
19. At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is
concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
10
CRR No.2634/2024
accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could
prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on
record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the
accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that
stage.”
15. Hon’be the Apex Court in the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat
& ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh;(2013) 11 SCC 476, has discussed
the legal position with respect to framing of charges as hereunder:
“15. …..This Court explained the legal position and the
approach to be adopted by the Court at the stage of framing of
charges or directing discharge in the following words: [Onkar Nath
Mishra v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2008) 2 SCC 561): (2008) Cri.L.J.
1391 (SC)].
11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court
is required to evaluate the material and documents on record
with a view to finding out if the facts emerging
therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of
all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that
stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative
value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is
whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has
been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused
has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion
founded on material which leads the court to form aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1695411
CRR No.2634/2024
presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the
framing of charge against the accused in respect of the
commission of that offence.”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Support for the above view was drawn by this Court from
earlier decisions rendered in State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy; 1977 Cri.LJ 1125 (SC), State of Maharashtra & Ors.
v. Som Nath Thapa and Ors.; 1996 Cri.LJ 2448 (SC) and State of
M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni; 2000 Cri.LJ 3504 (SC). In Som Nath’s case
(supra) the legal position was summed up as under:
“32. …if on the basis of materials on record, a court could
come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a
probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To
put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused
might have* committed the offence it can frame the charge,
though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the
accused has* committed the offence. It is apparent that at the
stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials
on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record
by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.”
(Emphasis supplied)
17. So also in Mohanlal case (supra) this Court referred to
several previous decisions and held that the judicial opinion
regarding the approach to be adopted for framing of charge is that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
12
CRR No.2634/2024
such charges should be framed if the Court prima facie finds that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The
Court is not required to appreciate evidence as if to determine
whether the material produced was sufficient to convict the
accused. The following passage from the decision in Mohanlal case
(supra) is in this regard apposite:
“8. The crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of
framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude
whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for
convicting the accused.””
(Emphasis supplied.)”
16. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs State of
Kerala and Another; (2010) 2 SCC 398, has held that the
consideration of the Court at the stage of framing of charges is for the
limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. Whether the material in
the hands of the prosecution is sufficient or not are matters of trial.
Moreover, the issue whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal is also immaterial. The relevant portion of the decision is
reproduced below:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
13
CRR No.2634/2024
“12. ………This Court has thus held that whereas strong suspicion
may not take the place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it may be
sufficient for the satisfaction of the Trial Judge in order to frame a
charge against the accused.”
17. Considering the conspectus of the decisions discussed
hereinabove, it is apparent that at the stage of charge, the Trial Court
has to merely peruse the evidence in order to find out whether there is
a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not. If upon
consideration of the material placed before it, the Trial Court is
satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, it
must proceed to frame charge in terms of Section 228 of the CrPC.
The Trial Court cannot conduct a roving and fishing inquiry into the
evidence or a meticulous consideration thereof at this stage.
Marshalling and appreciation of evidence and going into the probative
value of the material on record, is not in the domain of the Court at
the time of framing of charges. Thus, the present matter has to be
decided as per the parameters laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court.
18. In the case in hand, the police has recorded the statements of
Rohit Patel (Kurmi), Mukundi Patel and Imarti Bai Patel (Kurmi), in
which, they have unequivocally stated that applicants/accused having
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
14
CRR No.2634/2024
known that their son/brother does not consume liquor and does not
know proper driving of the vehicle, consumed liquor with him and
compelled him to drive the vehicle in drunken condition and despite
knowing that the well, in front of which his vehicle/car was standing,
is not having any boundary, they compelled the deceased to drive the
vehicle and on that account, vehicle fell down in the Well and their
son/brother viz. Sanjay Patel died. The statements of Kamlesh @
Kamlu, Bihari Patel (Kurmi), Ranjeet Vishwakarma and Rahul Sen
have been recorded who have also supported the prosecution story
stating that after falling of the vehicle in Well, applicants/accused fled
away from the spot and did not inform to anyone till the car/vehicle
and dead body of the deceased were recovered. Thus, the
applicants/accused might have knowledge that their act would likely
to cause the death of Sanjay @ Mani Patel. As far as the contention
that applicants were not named in the FIR, is also of no assistance as
missing report was lodged and after recovery of the car and dead-
body of the deceased, statements of the witnesses were recorded.
19. Therefore, the material on record prima facie appears to frame
the charge for commission of offence under Section 304 part-II of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
15
CRR No.2634/2024
IPC. The applicants/accused fled away from the spot and did not
inform anyone about the incident; therefore, framing of charge for
commission of offence under Section 202 of IPC also cannot said to
be without any reason.
20. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State Of Gujarat vs
Dilipsinh Kishorsinh; 2023 SCC Online SC 1294, has observed as
under:-
“13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be
exercised routinely. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should
not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to
keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should
not lead to injustice ex-facie. Where the Court is dealing with the
question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in
accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere
in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case
substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of
charge is a much-advanced stage in the proceedings under
the CrPC.”
14. This Court in the aforesaid judgment has also laid down
principles to be considered for the exercise of jurisdiction under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
16
CRR No.2634/2024
Section 397 particularly in the context of prayer for quashing of
charge framed under Section 228 Cr. P.C. is sought for as under:
“27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under
these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the
Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will
be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to
which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it
is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with
precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis
of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out
some of the principles to be considered for the proper exercise
of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge
either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section
482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the
Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power,
the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking
these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings,
particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the
Code should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case
and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish
the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and
inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reachSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1695417
CRR No.2634/2024
such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a
criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No
meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for
considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at
the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
*****
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts
have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence
and materials on record to determine whether there is
sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in
a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the
allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an
offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading
to injustice.
******
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule
of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly
satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit the
continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that
initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records
with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the
documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16954
18
CRR No.2634/2024
15. The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and
start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the
statement of witnesses and it is not legally permissible. The High
Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that the trial court was
dealing with an application for discharge.”
21. In view of the above detailed discussions, I am of the view that
there is no patent infirmity in the order framing charge. Hence, the
present criminal revision filed by the applicants/accused fails and the
same is dismissed. The observation made hereinabove shall remain
confined to the disposal of the present revision petition and will have
no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
@shish
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 08-04-2025
18:40:08
[ad_1]
Source link