TARUN JIT TEJPAL versus THE STATE OF GOA & ANR.

TARUN JIT TEJPAL versus THE STATE OF GOA & ANR.

The informant and Investigating Officer being the same does not vitiate the prosecution when proceedings were initiated prior to Mohan Lal. At the framing of charge, only existence of sufficient material is to be evaluated, not merits or defence. As there is ample material on record, the trial court and High Court were correct in refusing discharge. No interference required.

Parties
Appellant Original Accused: Tarun Jit Tejpal; Respondents: The State of Goa & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Criminal Revision Application Seeking Discharge at Framing of Charge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; M.A. disposed of as infructuous.
Legal Topics
Framing of Charge, Discharge Application, Crime Against Women
Criminal Law Framing of Charge Discharge Application Crime Against Women

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarun Jit Tejpal

Appellant Original Accused

The State of Goa & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Criminal Revision Application Seeking Discharge at Framing of Charge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discharge should be allowed at the stage of framing of charge when informant and Investigating Officer are same
  2. 2 Scope of court's power under Sections 227/228 CrPC at framing of charge

Ratio Decidendi

The informant and Investigating Officer being the same does not vitiate the prosecution when proceedings were initiated prior to Mohan Lal. At the framing of charge, only existence of sufficient material is to be evaluated, not merits or defence. As there is ample material on record, the trial court and High Court were correct in refusing discharge. No interference required.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; M.A. disposed of as infructuous.

Orders

  • Trial court directed to conclude trial at the earliest within six months.
  • All concerned to cooperate with the early disposal of trial.