1 2025:CGHC:24679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 672 of 2019 Budhram Verma Shri Bisauharam Verma, Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village Chandi, P. S. Suhela, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, 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 23.03.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.119/2019 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Budhram Verma), whereby charge under Sections 304 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant. The applicant, being dissatisfied with the said order, has preferred this petition seeking appropriate relief in accordance with KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 law. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 04.11.2018 at about 3.00 pm while, the deceased Kanhaiya Lal Verma was returning on his bicycle from Baloda Bazar to village Risda, he met with an accident and sustained head injury. He was later taken to District Hospital - Balodabazar by his brother Sanjay Verma and from there he was referred to D.K.S. Hospital, Raipur. The deceased ultimately succumbed to his injuries on 05.11.2018 at 2.30 am. 3. The Merg intimation regarding the death was lodged by a hospital employee before P.S. Gole Bazar, Raipur. The post mortem was conducted wherein the cause of death was reported to be cardio respiratory failure as a result of head injury. During investigation the police claims to have got information that the accident was caused by a motorcycle bearing registration number CG-04-FJ-9322. On 03.01.2019, the police seized the said motorcycle from the present applicant along with the registration and insurance papers after about 02 months, on the basis of merg intimation was registered at P.S. City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar on 04.01.2019. 4. Thereafter, on 15.01.2019, the statements of witnesses have been recorded who say that they were informed by the general public that the accident was caused by the above mentioned motorcycle. On the same day, the applicant was arrested. After competing the necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar, on 05.02.2019 and after hearing the parties on framing of charge, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.03.2019 framed the charge against 3 the applicant for offence under Sections 304 of IPC. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is patently erroneous, unreasonable and contrary to settled principles of law. He further submits that the applicant is a Mason by profession and he has absolutely no connection with the alleged incident. There is absolutely no evidence that the applicant was driving the said motorcycle on the alleged date of incident and the alleged accident was never reported by any one nor there is any witness of the alleged accident. He further submits that there is no record or witness to the fact that the injury was reported to have been caused by any accident. Even after his death, when merg intimation was reported, there was no mention as to how the death was caused. None of the relatives of the deceased have reported the alleged accident or the death of Kanhaiya Lal Vdrma before the Police and after two months of his death, the merg intimation has been recorded by P.S. City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, even then none of the relatives of the deceased made any allegation or statement about any accident. He further submits that for the first time on 15.01.2019, Sanjay Verma has stated that he was informed that the public gathered at the spot had informed him that the incident took place by the motorcycle in question. Apparently the whole story has been concocted and framed for the purpose of getting compensation on account of accidental death and despite the fact, that police had filed 4 charge-sheet for offence under Section 304A of IPC. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State supports the order impugned and further submits the FIR was initially registered for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC. However, during the course of investigation, it was found to be a case of accident and accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed under Section 304-A of the IPC. It was also revealed that the applicant’s motorcycle was involved in the incident and he was subsequently arrayed as an accused and further there is sufficient material available on record to prove the charge framed against the applicant. 7. 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 5 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 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 8. 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 charge 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. 9. 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 charge against the applicant. 10.Accordingly, the Revision, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stands vacated. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 12.Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal