1 2025:CGHC:18254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1326 of 2025 1 - Laxmikant Thakur @ Ravi Singh Thakur S/o G.S. Thakur Aged About 39 Years R/o Bamleshwari Colony Chowki Padmanabhpur District - Durg (C.G.) (Name As Per Charge Framed) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Mohan Nagar Durg (C.G.) 2 - Rahul Jawale S/o Sanjay Jawale Aged About 33 Years R/o 5/56 Nehru Nagar West P.S. Supela District - Durg (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 22.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the order dated 04-01-2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, in SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.23 10:38:15 +0530 2 Criminal Revision No. 260/2024, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The said criminal revision arises out of the order dated 29-07-2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in Criminal Case RCC No. 12698/2021, whereby, the learned trial court has framed charges under Section 386 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Money Landers Act, 1934 (commonly known as “Karja Act”), against the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in Criminal Case No. RCC/12698/2021, pending before the learned trial court, which arises out of Crime No. 414/2018, registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg, (C.G.), for the offence under Section 386 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Karja Act, on the complaint made by the complainant Rahul Jawale (Respondent No. 2). It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the in the year 2012, he was in business of Billiards game at Bhilai, and introduced with the accused/petitioner. He was the middleman in a loan obtained by the Respondent No. 2 from one Laxmikant Thakur, from whom he received a loan of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs, and he gave him two blank cheques and one stamp paper dated 08-10-2012, with respect to pledging of his Car. When the complainant failed to repay the amount of the loan, a dispute started, and the cheques were dishonoured, and ultimately, his father had to pay Rs. Four Lakhs to Laxmikant Thakur. After this incident, his father threw him out of his house, and he started residing in a rented house. Despite repayment of the entire amount of the loan, including interest, the petitioner/accused continues to threaten him and demand interest after giving a threat that he will kidnap his wife and children. On 10-01-2015, he gave him Rs. 2 Lakhs and obtained two blank cheques and again took his hand note in stamp paper, and thereafter started recovery of Rs. 35,000/- per month, which continued up to August 2015. He also harassed him physically as well as mentally, and prepared a video clip of assaulting him and threatened that he would get it 3 viral on social media. Under tremendous pressure, he left his house, and then a missing person report was lodged by his wife. In the year 2018, the petitioner/accused again started threatening him and got the two cheques dishonoured, which were given to him in the year 2015, and again pressurized him for payment of interest. He is in very much of fear and hiding himself here and there from the petitioner/accused. On the complaint of the Respondent No. 2, the FIR has been registered at Mohan Nagar police station, Durg, for the offence under Section 386 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Karja Act. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned trial court. 3. The learned trial court has framed charges under Section 386 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Karja Act, vide order dated 29-07-2024. The order dated 29- 07-2024 was challenged by the petitioner/accused in Criminal Revision No. 260/2024, filed by the petitioner/accused before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, which has been dismissed vide order dated 04-01-2025. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that from the entire material available in the charge sheet, there are no ingredients that the petitioner/accused has committed the offence of Section 386 of the IPC or Section 4 of the Karja Act. The complainant/Respondent No. 2 himself has stated that he obtained a loan of Rs. 02 Lakhs from the petitioner in the year 2015 and gave two cheques to him along with an agreement stamp, and there was no extortion on that day. From the definition of Section 383 of the IPC, there is no delivery of the property pursuant to any threat or extortion, and there is no inducement of any property. Even if the entire material available in the charge sheet is taken as it is, no case of extortion or under the Karja Act is made out prima facie against the petitioner. Without there being any prima facie case, the petitioner cannot be put into the rigours of a trial of a criminal case, and the same would amount to infringement of his 4 fundamental rights. The essential ingredients of the alleged offence are missing in the case. From the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant, it transpires that he had taken a loan from the petitioner after giving cheques as security for the loan, and there was litigation between them for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which came to an end on the compromise. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, and the petitioner may be discharged from the alleged charge. He would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2014 (15) SCC 357 (Isaac Isanga Musumba v. State of Maharashtra), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1037 (Shashikant Sharma and Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.), and 2023 SCC Online All. 872 (Sanjeev Rawat and another v. State of U.P. and Another). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the state would submit that there is prima facie evidence available in the charge sheet against the petitioner to frame the charge and to proceed with the trial of the case. The charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 386 of the IPC, Section 4 of the Karja Act. There is sufficient prima facie evidence available in the charge sheet that the petitioner has extorted money from the respondent No. 2/complainant. He threatened the complainant and demanded money from him after putting him in fear of dire consequences. At the time of framing of the charge, only prima facie evidence is to be seen, and the Court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the learned trial court framed the charge, and the criminal revision has been dismissed by the learned revisional court. There is no irregularity or illegality in the orders impugned, and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5 7. At the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence on record nor to conduct a mini-trial. The court would only consider whether prima facie material is there or not to proceed with the trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles in the case of State of M.P. vs. Deepak 2019 (13) SCC 62, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to consider the material only to find out if there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence. It is also held that the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record to find out if facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and at the stage of framing charge, the court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded is likely to be convicted or not. In the matter of Deepak (Supra), in its judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- 16. It was also noted that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for "presuming" that the accused had committed the offence: (Chitresh Kumar d Chopra case, SCC p. 613, para 25) "25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. 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 not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction." 6 8. In the matter of Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain Mohammad Shattaf 2023 (7) SCC 633, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 12 of its judgement that:- 12- The law on the point has been summarised in a recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap2. Relevant paras are extracted below: - “11.1. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398, this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227 CrPC What is required to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application has been considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to 2 (2021) 11 SCC 191 Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2023 determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. 11.2. In the recent decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515, one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) speaking for the Bench has observed and held in para 25 as under: - “25. The High Court [M.R. Hiremath v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4970] ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for 7 discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709, Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2023 adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held:- “29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.” 9. Further, in the matter of State by SP through the SPE, CBI vs. Uttamchand Bohra, 2022 (16) SCC 663, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 21 of its judgement that: 21- In CBI v. K. Narayana Rao this Court, after reviewing the previous decisions that dealt with the question of the applicable standard relating to discharge of accused in a criminal case, summarized the principles in the Following terms:- 8 “12. The first decision in Ramesh Singh relates to interpretation of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code for the considerations as to discharge the accused or to proceed with trial. Para 4 of the said judgment is pressed into service which reads as under:- 4. Under Section 226 of the Code while opening the case for the prosecution the Prosecutor has got to describe the charge against the accused and state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter comes at the initial stage the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to pass thereafter an order either under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. If "the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing", as enjoined by Section 227. If, on the other hand, "the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which (b) is exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused", as provided in Section 228. Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, 9 cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even, at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial is to end inking an order under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227. 13. Discharge of the accused under Section 227 of the Code was extensively considered by this Court in P. Vijayan wherein it was held as under:- ‘10…. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge 10 at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. 11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the 9 evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.’ 14. While considering the very same provisions i.e. framing of charges and discharge of the accused, again in Sajjan Kumar, this Court held thus: - 19. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce proves the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. 20. A Magistrate enquiring into a case under Section 209 CrPC is not to act as a mere post office and has to come to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of the accused to the Court of Session. He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record, but only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for 11 commitment, and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. If there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is the duty of the Magistrate to discharge the accused, on the other hand, if there is some evidence on which the conviction may reasonably be based, he must commit the case. It is also clear that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC, the Magistrate should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC. 21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offende it can frame the charge, though for conviction the 12 conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.’” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held in para 12 of its judgement in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC Online SC 1294, that:- 10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. 11. This Court in State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held: (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29) 13 “29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage." 11. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Others, 2020 (2) SCC 290, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same and has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused to proceed with the trial. 14 12. In the present case, the charge of Section 386 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Karja Act was framed by the learned Trial Court. Section 383 of the IPC defines extortion, and Section 386 of the IPC provides punishment for extortion, which reads as under:- Section 383 Extortion. “Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".” Section 386 Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt “Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 13. In view of the above principles, on examining the material available in the charge sheet, which is filed along with the petition, it prima facie gives sufficient material that the present petitioner is involved in the offence, and there is sufficient prima facie material to frame the charge and to proceed with the trial of the case. in the written complaint of the complainant, it prima facie reveal that the petitioner threatened him and extorted money on the pretext of interest on the loan amount and even after repayment of entire loan, he continued in his act. Whether or not any amount is outstanding, handing over the cheques, compromise in the earlier cheque dishonour case, extortion of the money, etc., are the factual issue, which has to be decided after recording evidence of the parties. The allegation made in the written complaint, and the statement of the witnesses, Rahul Jawle, Sanjay Jawle, Smt. Namika Jawle and Vijay Kumar, there are sufficient ingredients of the alleged offence for framing the charge against the petitioner/accused, and to proceed with the trial. 15 14. It is a settled legal position that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial judge has to examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to prima facie satisfy as to whether or not the evidence is sufficient to proceed with the trial against the accused. The nature of the evidence collected during the investigation or the documents produced with it, which prima facie reveal that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, would suffice to frame the charge, and they proceed with the trial. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after considering the material available in the charge sheet, then the charge has to be framed. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage of framing of the charge. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of the material on record need not be gone into. 15. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not give any benefit to him because there is sufficient material against the petitioner to frame the charge and to proceed with the trial of the case. in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue was that there was a lack of fear or accusation of offence, and lack of delivery of property to the accused person pursuant to the threat, but here in the present case, there was threat, fear and delivery of the cash amount, and therefore, the judgment cited by the petitioner is not apply to the present case. 16. This court, therefore, is of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has rightly framed the charge against the petitioner, and there is sufficient prima facie material available in the charge sheet to frame the charge and to proceed with the trial of the case. There is no ground to quash the charge framed by the learned trial court, and no illegality or irregularity is found warranting interference in the impugned order of framing the charge against 16 the petitioner, as such criminal revision deserves to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika