1 2025:CGHC:24673 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1138 of 2022 Rajveer Tyagi S/o Bijendra Singh Tyagi Aged About 43 Years R/o Audela Road Kamla Colony, Police Station Nihalganj , District- Dhaulpur (Rajasthan), District : Dhaulpur, Rajasthan ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, 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 10.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, District – Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 27/2022, whereby charges under Sections 306 and 201 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 law. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18.08.2021, the complainant Amardas Chandra given an intimation before the Police Station, Marwahi to the effect that one person has committed suicide in Amraiya Jungle of Village Mauharitoli. The Police taken down the dead body and the same was identified as Naresh Kushwaha. The Police registered the merg No. 55/2021 and during merg enquiry, a suicidal note was recovered, in which the deceased recorded the reason for commission of suicide that the applicant was demanded the debt amount from him, due to which, he has committed suicide. On the basis of above suicidal note, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Marwahi has registered the offence under Section 306 and 201 of IPC against the applicant and he has been arrested and after completion of entire investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted before the learned JMFC, Marwahi. thereafter the case has been transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, where the S.T. No. 27/2022 has been registered against the applicant and on the basis of material available on record, vide impugned order dated 10.08.2022, the learned trial Court has framed the charges under Sections 306 and 201 of IPC against the applicant. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order so far framing charges against the applicant under Section 306 and 201 of IPC, is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside/quashed. The applicant has never instigated or abetted 3 the deceased for committing suicide. There is no direct or indirect material against the applicant to involve the applicant in commission of alleged offence. From the entire evidence gathered by the prosecution in this case, it is clear that except the suicide note there is nothing on record to establish that before any of the prosecution witnesses the applicant ever physically, mentally or financially tortured the deceased. Though in the suicide note, it has been mentioned by the deceased that he was being tortured by the applicant mentally and financially yet there is no particular mentioned in the said suicide note about the date, time, place, nature of the alleged torture and before whom the alleged torture was given to the deceased. Hence, the impugned order of the trial Court framing charges under Sections 306 and 201 of the IPC, against the applicants, is liable to be set-aside. 4. 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 306 and 201 of the IPC. However, after completion of entire investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Section 306 and 201 of the IPC. It was also revealed that in the suicide note, it has been mentioned by the deceased that he was being tortured by the applicant mentally and financially due to which, the deceased committed suicide, and further there is sufficient material available on record to prove the charge framed against the applicant. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 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 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 5 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.” 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 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. 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 charge against the applicant. 6 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 transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar