1 2025:CGHC:24548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1222 of 2022 Smt. Ruchi Gupta @ Khushi Gupta W/o Ashwini Gupta, D/o Satendra Gupta Aged About 22 Years R/o Bhaisamunda Police Station And Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) Present Address Aaragahi Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, 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 29.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G), in Sessions Case No. 21/2022, whereby charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code 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 and son of complainant were married on November 2021 and they were residing together as husband and wife. Thereafter on the basis of complaint presented by the complainant namely Banarasi Prasad Gupta, the F.I.R was lodged before the concerning Police Station dated 14.07.2022. As per prosecution story that the petitioner on 11.07.2022 at midnight 12:30 took the respondent to the terrace to show something and pushed him with intent to cause death in result he fell down and got severely injured There after the investigation was done by S.H.O Pratappur and crime was registered u/s 307 of IPC The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 29.10.2022 has framed a charge for commission of offence u/s 307 IPC, 1860. 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 29.10.2022 framed the charge under Sections 307 of the IPC against the applicant. Hence, this criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 29.10.2022 is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and therefore, liable to be set aside. He also submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that none of the witnesses had mentioned that they themselves had seen the incident happened. He further submits that the applicant is the wife of the complainant/injured, and it is stated that there was a matrimonial dispute between the two. The allegation is that the applicant pushed her husband (the 3 complainant) from the roof, causing him to suffer injuries. It is stated that, as per the medical examination report, the injuries sustained by the injured/husband were caused by a hard and blunt object. He further submits that learned trial Court must have appreciated that the terrace was opened and was not fenced, from where the respondent fell down. Further the injuries were not sustained by the injured on the vital part of the body. He also submits that the bare perusal of the charge-sheet would show that no offence under Section 307 of IPC can been attracted against the applicant. 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, Ms. Monika Thakur, 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. 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:- 4 “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 be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on 5 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 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. 6 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. 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 Rahul Dewangan