GIRRAJ PRASAD MEENA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 30-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 393 
GIRRAJ PRASAD MEENA 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1547 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
s.252 and Chapter XXl-A - FIR uls. 365 /PC - Alleging c 
offence of kidnapping against 7 persons - Police fifed charge-
sheet uls.323 and 343 rlw. s.34 /PC only against two accused 
- Both the accused fifed application pleading guilty for the 
offences charged - Trial court without notice to the victim 
convicted the accused u/ss.323 and 343 rlw. s.34 /PC and 0 
concluded the trial same day - Application u/s. 482 by the 
appellant dismissed by High Court - Held: Order of trial court 
stands vitiated as it proceeded not only in great haste but 
adopted a procedure not known in law - The Court was obliged 
to put the victim to notice before extending the benefit to the E 
accused persons. 
s. 216 - Finality of charges - Filing of charge-sheet and 
taking cognizance has nothing to do with finality of charges, 
as the charges can be altered, amended, changed and added 
at any stage upto the stage of conviction. 
F 
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - s.12 - Conviction of 
accused u/ss. 323 and 343 rlw. s.34 /PC, on their having 
pleaded guilty - Further held that conviction would not affect 
their Government service - Held: Trial court had no G 
competence to make any observation having civil 
consequences. 
Pursuant to order u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation, 
393 
H 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
FIR u/s. 365 IPC was lodged, alleging that appellant was 
kidnapped by the private respondents alongwith 5 other 
accused. Police, after completing the investigation, filed 
charge-sheet against only two accused (private 
respondents) u/ss. 323 and 343 r/w Section 34 IPC. Both 
B the accused-respondents filed an application pleading 
guilty for the offences u/ss. 323 and 343 IPC,before the 
statements of the witnesses were recorded. The trial 
court entertained the application forth with and 
concluded the trial immediately convicting the accused 
c u/ss. 323 and 343 r/w Section 34 IPC, without issuing 
notice to the appellant. The accused were further granted 
benefit of provisions of s.12 of Probation of the Offenders 
Act, 1958, holding that the order passed in the criminal 
case, shall not have any adverse affect on the 
0 
Government service of the accused persons. Appellant 
challenged the order of trial court by filing application u/ 
s. 482 Cr.P.C. High Court dismissed the application 
holding that the appellant had not challenged the order 
taking cognizance nor any objection was raised when 
• charges were read over to the accused. Hence the 
E present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The appellant has been raising the 
F 
grievance from the very beginning that the police has not 
been investigating the case properly and for that 
purpose, he had also approached the High Court by filing 
Writ Petition, wherein several directions had been issued 
by the Division Bench of the High Court to the Director 
G General of Police for a fair investigation. In the statement 
of the appellant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 
appellant gave a full version as to how he had been 
kidnapped and illegally detained. Appellant named 7 
persons and serious allegations of criminal intimidation, 
threats, terrorising and causing physical harm had been 
H 
GIRRAJ PRASAD MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 395 
& ORS. 
levelled. The police after concluding the investigation 
A 
filed a charge sheet only against the two accused and, 
that too, only for the offences punishable under Sections 
323 and 343 IPC. [Para 7] [401-C·F] 
B 
1.2. Had the trial court applied its mind to the material 
collected during investigation and particularly the 
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the 
charges could have been framed also under Section 365 
IPC. In that case, the Gram Nyayalaya would have no 
jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the maximum 
sentence for that offence is 7 years imprisonment with 
C 
fine, and the Magistrate in that situation, was bound to 
commit the matter to the Sessions court. Further, before 
the statements of the witnesses could be recorded, the 
private respondents filed an application admitting their 
guilt. Had the statements of the witnesses been recorded, 
D 
perhaps the court could have issued summons to other 
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. or charges could ha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.