Jagraj Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
"#
!$%&'
% ()*+,-.,/0+%0, %)%/%
!"
"
#
$
%%% %0, %)%/%'- &
!
'
&( )* +)+( '
,
, - +.+)+(
/0 - +(* )( && +)++ " (.1 .)2
0
, &32)
" 3
" , 4 5 6 " +)&+ ,'
'
" (.1 (*2 .)20 , " 1 3
6,6 "
4
+
7 "
!
/0
" '
"4 89:
!"4
' && ,
4# "4 ! 4
+(' 6 4#
"
+3 &) +)++
4 '
'" "
"
54# 4 4 " !
9 #
4
"
4
#
4
5
4 '
0
' " " (*2 .)20 , " 2
6,6 " 0 !
"
$ !
" (*20 , " 2 6,6 "
"
" (.1 .)20 , " 3
6,6 " 0
"
"
4
9
() ).
+)+(
' "
,
4 &( )* +)+( 4 " (*20 , " 1 6,6 "
(
0 '
"
4
'
4 4
;
4 4 "
" (*20 , " 1 6,6 "
,
"
'5'
4
<
"5 " " &21,
, " "'4
/0< " ! "
!"
!"4
4 " !
"
<
"
!"4 !
'
"
0 !
6"
4"
' " 4 "
! '" 5 " 5
;
4
4
=
'
"
/>?$-
4 "
!"44"
4
'
'"
'
"44
'
"
"44 '
,
4 4 "
" 0
' 4
4 "
"
' "" ' ' 4
4
.
0 !
"
"
"
!
" "
'
0
4
"
/0
' " (*20 , " 2 6,6 "
$
" !
" (.1 .)20 , " 3 6,6 "
"
" ,
4
" '
,
9
'
" &*(@3A,
,
" (*20 , " 1 6,6 "
"
$- !
4 4
$-
"
#4
!"4
4"
$-
$-
4
4
'"
,
4
4
"
"
"4 " "
" "44
" 4
'"
4
4
'
, 4 "
"
"
'
"
*
04' 4
,"4 4# ? "
'
"
" +&2,
, "
'"
= 0
,
4 "
'
" " "
4 "
"" " " B0
4 "
, "
4 !
4
"" "44
!
" "
4
!
" "
#
'
" !" " 5 " 4 !
"
5,"
!!"#
!
at the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth, even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge, the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. Reliance can also be placed upon
1$ % &&'( (& ")" !!
#*
9 :
, !
"
= 4
,4'
!
4
4" "
""
4
4 "
, "
!
"
""
'
5 0 "
'
, 4
"
, "
"
"
!
"4
"
, 4# roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. Reliance is further placed upon 'Asian + , !-%
. /!!#'
9 :
, !
" "
4 "
5"
" " "#" " C"
" 4 "
8.
On applying the ratio of law as laid down in the above cited authorities to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is observed that though there is no bar to the jurisdiction of this Court to consider a challenge against an order framing charges but such exercise has to be limited to rare of rarest cases and in exceptional situation for correcting a patent error or lack of jurisdiction, whereas, no such circumstance has been made out in this case. Rather, it is apparent that the petitioner had been booked for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC as well as Section 6 of POCSO Act which is even graver in nature than Section 4 of POCSO Act at the time of lodging of FIR itself and it was only during the course of investigation that these offences were deleted.
It is only on the basis of evidence to be produced on record that trial Court will come to conclusion that whether a case for commission of the additional offences has been made out or not?
passing the impugned order. Accordingly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed.
!$%&'
(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes