1 2025:CGHC:56892 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3551 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar Mishra S/o Late Radhamohan Mishra Aged About 42 Years Address -H.I.G. 2361, Housing Board Colony, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - Police Station Mahila Thana Bhilai Nagar (Wrongly Mentioned Mahila Thana Durg ) District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 24/11/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally at motion stage. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of 2 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 330/2024 whereby the revision file by the petitioner has been rejected and order passed by the learned Trial Court in Criminal Case (Filing) No. RCC/36794/2018 dated 18.10.2024 has been maintained. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the material available on record and mechanically proceeded to frame charges. It was argued that no prima facie case is made out and continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order and submitted that sufficient material exists on record to frame charges and that the order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the Magistrate is not required to evaluate the evidence on merits or determine the likelihood of conviction or acquittal. The court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the material placed on record. 7. It is further well established that if prima facie material exists to frame charges, the court is not required to record detailed reasons, whereas reasons are necessary only in cases where 3 charges are not framed or are diluted. 8. On a careful scrutiny of the record, including the statements, documents, and charge-sheet filed by the prosecution, this Court finds that the allegations disclose prima facie offences against the petitioner punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 9. The material on record is sufficient to raise a strong suspicion against the petitioner, warranting framing of charges. At this stage, appreciation of evidence, examination of contradictions, or determination of truthfulness of allegations is neither permissible nor desirable. 10. This Court finds that the learned Magistrate has exercised discretion in a judicious and legal manner while passing the impugned order. No illegality, procedural irregularity, arbitrariness, or perversity is discernible which would call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. 11. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 is legal, proper, and justified and does not warrant interference. 12. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed on merits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima