Judgment Intelligence
Petition Dismissed- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 16 September 2026
- Bench
- Justice Ashok Kumar Jain
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 227, 239, 397, 401
Both criminal revision petitions dismissed; the order framing charges stands (paras 19-21).
Key holdings
- Strong suspicion that the accused committed the offence is enough to frame a charge (para 10).
- At the charge stage, the prosecution material is assumed true; its probative value is not weighed (paras 11, 14).
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC corrects patent defects, jurisdictional errors and perversity only (para 16).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39
At the initial stage, strong suspicion that the accused committed an offence is sufficient ground to proceed; the presumption is only for deciding prima facie whether to proceed with trial.
- Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4
The judge may sift and weigh the evidence only to see whether a prima facie case and grave suspicion are made out.
- P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2010) 2 SCC 398
Reiterated that strong suspicion at the initial stage justifies proceeding against the accused.
View all precedents (10)
- State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru v. M. R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515
On a discharge plea the court assumes the prosecution material to be true and sees whether it discloses the ingredients of the offence; it does not go deep into whether it would warrant conviction.
- State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021) 11 SCC 191
Neither a roving enquiry nor a mini-trial is permissible at the stage of charge or discharge.
- Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) v. Hussain Wherem Mohammed Shattaf 2023 INSC 555 2023 INSC 555
A mini-trial or a defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of charge or discharge.
- Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra 2002 (2) SCC 135
Relied on by the accused; explained as permitting the evidence to be sifted only to see whether grave suspicion exists, with discharge where only some suspicion arises.
- Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368
At the time of framing charge the court looks at the whole material for a prima facie case but does not assess admissibility or reliability, which are matters for trial.
- Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460
Revisional power under Section 397 CrPC is for correcting patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law and perversity.
- Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr. (2022) SCC Online SC 1057
Considered the scope of Sections 397 and 482 CrPC in relation to orders framing charges.
