Published on: December 31, 2023 at 00:10 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Bhawna Bai V. Ghanshyam (2020)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that for framing charge under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Sessions Judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. It is held that if on perusal of record and hearing of parties, the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by the Court of Session, then the Court shall frame the charge against the accused for such offence.
17. As discussed above, in the present case, upon hearing the parties and considering the allegations in the charge-sheet, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The order dated 12-12-2018 framing the charges is not a detailed order. For framing the charges under Section 228 CrPC, the Judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen.
As held in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B., while exercising power under Section 228 CrPC, the Judge is not required to record his reasons for framing the charges against the accused. Upon hearing the parties and based upon the allegations and taking note of the allegations in the charge-sheet, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and framed the charges against the accused-Respondents 1 and 2.
While so, the High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the trial court framing the charges against the accused-Respondents 1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the High Court, in our view, erred in quashing the charges framed against the accused. The impugned order cannot therefore be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra