1 2025:CGHC:24676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 283 of 2021 Dipendra Sharma S/o Suklal Sharma Aged About 35 Years R/o High School Para, Geedam District Dantewada Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Vishrampuri District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, (C.G), in Special Case No. 14/2020, whereby charges under Sections 294, 506(B) of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been framed against the applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant, Traman Banjare, Sub-Engineer (Civil), Public Grievance Cell, Vishrampuri, filed an application for registration of an FIR against accused Dipendra Sharma, son of Suklal Sharma, aged 35 years, caste Brahmin, resident of Gadim, District Dantewada, alleging that the accused had used caste-based abusive language and threatened to kill him over the phone from his mobile number 9425597693 to the complainant’s mobile number 95753130. The Station House Officer, Vishrampuri, informed the Sub-Divisional Officer of Police, Keshkal, about the incident through a letter, upon which an inquiry was conducted by the SDOP, Keshkal. Based on the inquiry, it was found that an offence was committed by the accused Dipendra Sharma, and accordingly, an offence under Section 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act and Section 66B of the IT Act was found to be made out and the matter was taken up for investigation. 3. After competing the necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted and after hearing the parties on framing of charge, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 07.01.2021 framed the charges under Sections 294, 506(B) of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the applicant. Hence, this criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 07.01.2021 is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and therefore, liable to be set aside. He further submits that the learned Trial Court 3 has wrongly framed charges under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, despite the fact that, as per the prosecution’s own case, the applicant did not know the caste of the complainant, nor was there any intention on his part to insult the complainant on the basis of caste. The only allegation against the applicant is that he demanded his money, and at most, there was a general exchange of abuse between the parties, without any caste- based slur. This is also supported by the statement of Mahendra Prasad Nishad, the sole independent witness cited by the prosecution, who clearly stated that he did not hear any caste- related abuse, only general abuses. It is further submitted that the complainant had borrowed money from the applicant, and in order to evade repayment, he lodged this false FIR. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in cases under the SC/ST Act, the courts must maintain a balance and safeguard the rights of both sides; however, in the present case, the learned Trial Court failed to consider the applicant’s submissions and framed charges without proper appreciation of arguments or passing a reasoned order, which is bad in law. The learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the evidence and documents placed before it in its correct perspective. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Verma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State supports the order impugned and submits that there is sufficient material available on record to prove the charge framed against the applicant. 4 6. 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 5 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 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 7. 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 charge has been framed against the applicant. I do not find any good ground for interference in the order framing charge passed by the trial court. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the Revision, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan