1 2025:CGHC:24552 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 265 of 2022 1. Santosh Vishwakarma S/o Yagyabhan Vishwakarma, Aged About 30 Years R/o Judwani, PS Lakhanpur, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) 2. Ajit Singh S/o Late Ravindra Pratap Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Judwani, PS Lakhanpur, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) 3. Shatrughan Singh S/o Sukhram Aged About 34 Years R/o Judwani, PS Lakhanpur, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) 4. Jayant Kumar S/o Channu Ram Aged About 37 Years R/o Judwani, PS Lakhanpur, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) 5. Pritam Das S/o Mohan Das Aged About 37 Years R/o Judwani, PS Lakhanpur, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Lakhanpur, Dist. Surguja (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.16 18:00:02 +0530 2 16.06.2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District - Surguja in ST No.210/2021, in respect of charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the complainant lodged a report against the applicant and other co-accused persons to the effect that he is running Maanpasand Dabha. The applicant and others entered into his dabha and started demanding amount in the name of electricity connection and when the complainant refused to fulfill the demand they started assaulting the complainant with hand and fist and also looted an amount of Rs.31,000/- from the dabha. the On basis of report and investigation, the applicant and other persons have been implicated. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order as well as framing of charge against the applicant is contrary to law and facts available on record. He further submits that initially, the FIR was registered against the applicant for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 506 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, but during the course of investigation after lapse of one and half years the statement of complainant has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the case has been improved. He further stated that the unknown persons also looted Rs. 27,000/- thus the charges for the offence under Section 395 of IPC has been framed subsequently and being aggrieved by the same, the present petition. He also submitted that the addition of the charge under Section 395 of IPC is afterthought, hence the charges be quashed. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supports the order impugned and submits that there is sufficient material available on record to prove the charges framed against the applicant. 5. In the matter of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057, it has been held that the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, the principle is reiterated that at this stage, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offence and only form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence and the relevant paras read as under:- “21. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should 4 be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. 22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.” 6. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, having perused the material filed by the prosecution and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, it cannot be held that the trial Court has wrongly framed the charges as aforementioned against the applicant. This Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient material available on record for the ingredients for which, the charges have been framed against the applicant. 7. Considering the fact that the charges have already been framed and the statement of victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C has already been recorded, wherein the applicant has also alleged for commission of offence under Section 395 of IPC, in view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position noted above, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned for framing charges against the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the Revision, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 5 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within 48 hours for concluding the trial expeditiously. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti