- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dhara Ram v. State Of Rajasthan .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat Camp Jaitaran, which affirmed the order dated 19-7-2000 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran that framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 419, 467, 471/120B, I.P.C.
The underlying facts in the complaint, as recorded, are that Ram Nath complained that his brother Bhiknath had taken a loan from Bhoomi Vikas Bank in Ram Nath’s name by forging a thumb impression on relevant documents. The learned Magistrate directed investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. During investigation, police found that the petitioner, Dhara Ram, the Sarpanch of the village, had attested an affidavit of Ram Nath. As a result, the petitioner was added as an accused and charges were framed against him on 19-7-2000.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the material on record is sufficient to frame charges against the petitioner under Sections 419, 467, 471/120B, I.P.C.?
- Whether the absence of mens rea on the part of the petitioner precludes putting him to trial for the offences alleged?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the Sarpanch and attested the affidavit only on the saying of another witness, Bhiknath.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any arguments advanced by the prosecution or other parties.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the material on record and found that, apart from the fact that the petitioner, identified as the Sarpanch by another witness, attested the affidavit, there was no material implicating him in the alleged offences. The court emphasized that there was an absence of mens rea on the part of the petitioner. On that basis the court concluded that the available material was not sufficient to put the petitioner to trial for the offences under Sections 419, 467, 471/120B, I.P.C. The court therefore allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition is allowed; the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 10-4-2003 and the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 19-7-2000 taking cognizance against Dhara Ram are set aside, and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 123/92 are quashed.
Implications: The direct consequence is that the accused, Dhara Ram, will not be put to trial on the charges framed in the specified proceedings. The opinion does not state or purport to establish any broader precedent beyond the disposal of the present petition.
1. By way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat Camp Jaitaran affirming the order dated 19-7-2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Sections 419, 467, 471/120B, I.P.C
2. The relevant facts giving rise to the instant petition are that one Ram Nath submitted a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaitram stating inter alia that his brother Bhiknath had taken loan from Bhoomi Vikas Bank in his name after forging thumb impression on the relevant documents. The complainant was sent for investigation by the learned Magistrate under the provisions of Section 156(3), Cr.P.C During the investigation police found that the petitioner herein Dhara Ram the Sarpanch of the Village falsely attested the affidavit of Ram Nath. Thus, the petitioner has also been added as an accused in the case. The learned Magistrate framed the charge referred to above against the petitioner by order dated 19-7-2000.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner is the Sarpanch and the attested the affidavit on the saying of another witness Bhiknath. On careful consideration of the material on record I am of the view that there is absolutely nothing against the petitioner except the fact that on indentifying by another witness the petitioner as Sarpanch attested the affidavit. In absence of mens rea the material on record is not sufficient to put the petitioner to trial for the offence under Sections 419, 467, 471/120B, I.P.C
4. Consequently the petition is allowed. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat Camp Jaitaran dated 10-4-2003 as well as the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran dated 19-7-2000 taking cognizance against the petitioner Dhara Ram is set aside. The proceedings against the petitioner in Cr. Case No. 123/92 stand quashed.
5. Petition allowed.
Alert