1 2025:CGHC:52213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 14 of 2022 1 - Aniruddha @ Monu Sharma S/o Shri Basant Kumar Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o Vinoba Nagar, A/3, P.S. Tarbahar, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Munna Sharma @ Chandraprakash Sharma S/o Late Ramawtar Sharma Aged About 62 Years R/o Jarhabhatha Mandir Chowk, In Front Of Rani Fancy, P.S. Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Daulat Singh Thakur S/o Late Gend Singh Thakur Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Dhuma, P.S. Hirri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station - Bilha, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Bhakta and Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocates. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.10.2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 48/2020, whereby charges RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 under Sections 341, 294, 323, 325, 365 and 395 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. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the date of incident is 15.04.2009 at about night 11.00 pm, the complainant namely Shailesh Nitin Trivedi, as per his version a dehati nalishi was recorded by the Police Station Kotwali Korba for the offence punishable Under Sections 341, 294, 323, 395, 365 of the IPC. Thereafter FIR was lodged in the Police Station 17.04.2009. It is alleged by the complainant that to campaign the Bilha vide FIR No. 58/2009 dated parliamentary election of Smt. Renu Jogi, the complainant was going through a Scorpio vehicle No. CG04/CZ/0007 along with his associates namely Prahlad, Girish Verma. When they reached near Bartoli (Bilha near Railway crossing), at about 11.00 pm, from the back side, two red colour Scorpio surrounded the complainant party with a vehicle bearing No. JH01-70-5898. It is further alleged that about 14 persons came by both the vehicles and started abusing the complainant party and started marpit by fist and slap & looted Rs. 20,000/- and a mobile after branding the complainant party. 3. After investigation, the Police has filed final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 341, 294, 323, 325 and 365 of the IPC only and also making a note contending that there is no any material was found to attract the offence under 3 Section 395 of the IPC and whenever the material will available during the course of investigation then the offence under Section 395 of IPC will be leveled against accused persons. Despite that, the learned Trial Court had framed the charges against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC including other i.e. 341, 294, 323, 325 and 365 of IPC without any material available in the charge sheet. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order so far framing charges against the applicant under Section 341, 294, 323, 325, 365 and 395 of IPC, is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside/quashed. It is further submitted that the applicants are not named in the FIR and only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused Varum Sharma, the applicants have been implicated in the present case. Hence, the impugned order of the trial Court framing charges under Sections 341, 294, 323, 325, 365 and 395 of the IPC, against the applicants, is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State supports the order impugned and further submits that as per the return filed by her in the present revision in paragraph No.5, the Investigating Officer collected evidence of mobile location of the applicant No.1 mobile number bearing number 98261915321 and 9826345437, and on the basis of the said evidence an interrogation was made with the applicant No.1. In the present case, the co-accused Varun Sharma has stated in his 4 memorandum statement that Monu @ Aniruddha Sharma, Lalit Singh, Munna Sharma and other persons were involved in commission of the alleged offence, and the complainant and one Girish Verma have duly identified the accused persons during identification proceedings, and further there is sufficient material available on record to prove the charge framed against the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 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 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 5 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.” 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 6 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 charges against the applicants. 10. Accordingly, the Revision, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 12. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar