Skip to content


Anujkumar Ravjibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1985)2GLR973
AppellantAnujkumar Ravjibhai Patel
RespondentState of Gujarat
Excerpt:
- - 3. the matter is, therefore, sent back to the learned chief metropolitan magistrate with a direction to pass a speaking order after considering the papers of investigation and the contentions raised by the prosecution as well as the accused......into about eight typed pages requesting the court to discharge him as there was no material to frame charge against him. the learned chief metropolitan magistrate, however, framed charge against all the accused including the petitioner on 8-8-1984. the learned chief metropolitan magistrate did not pass any speaking order as to why he was not inclined to discharge this petitioner but to frame charge against him. being dissatisfied with the charge framed against him, the original accused no. 7 anujkumar has filed this petition for quashing the charge framed against him.2. now, ordinarily one would not expect the court to pass a speaking order while framing charge. but when there is a contest and when it is contended by the accused that there is no material to frame charge against him.....
Judgment:

J.P. Desai, J.

1. Police submitted a charge sheet against Rajendra Girdharlal Mehta and four others for offences of cheating, forgery, etc. A supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against one Dipakbhai Dwarkadas and the present petitioner Anujkumar Ravjibhai Patel also for the same offences. The petitioner accused No. 7 in the trial Court gave an application on 10-1-1984 running into about eight typed pages requesting the Court to discharge him as there was no material to frame charge against him. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, however, framed charge against all the accused including the petitioner on 8-8-1984. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate did not pass any speaking order as to why he was not inclined to discharge this petitioner but to frame charge against him. Being dissatisfied with the charge framed against him, the original accused No. 7 Anujkumar has filed this petition for quashing the charge framed against him.

2. Now, ordinarily one would not expect the Court to pass a speaking order while framing charge. But when there is a contest and when it is contended by the accused that there is no material to frame charge against him and yet the Court is inclined to frame charge against him, a speaking order should be passed stating reasons, of course in brief, as to why the Court was inclined not to discharge the accused but to frame a charge against him, just as he would give reasons while discharging the accused. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate having not done so, the charge framed by him, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is required to be quashed not on merits but on this ground alone.

3. The matter is, therefore, sent back to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate with a direction to pass a speaking order after considering the papers of investigation and the contentions raised by the prosecution as well as the accused. It need not be emphasised that this order shall not be construed by the learned Magistrate as expression of any opinion whatsoever by this Court on merits of the question whether this is a fit case in which the accused should be discharged or charge should be framed. The learned trial Magistrate should apply his mind to all the material that may be placed before him and also consider the rival submissions made before him and then pass an appropriate order one way or the other, giving reasons in support of his order.

Rule is made absolute to the above extent.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //