[2025:RJ-JP:37225] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 546/2008 Pankaj @ Banti S/o Radhey Shyam R/o Alanpur P.S. Kotputli, Sawai Madhopur ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rinesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 11/09/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 17/09/2025 REPORTABLE 1. The present revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.05.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 38/2008 whereby the charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable because there is no material on record to make out even a prima facie case against the petitioner. He submits that if the case of the prosecution stands on the face of it then too, charge under Section 306 IPC cannot be framed against the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no role attributed to the petitioner on the basis of material available on record and the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are absent, therefore, the order of framing charge under Section 306 [2025:RJ-JP:37225] (2 of 5) [CRLR-546/2008] IPC is not only arbitrary but perverse and same is liable to be quashed and set aside and the revision petition may be allowed. 3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments: (i) Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2024) 3 SCC 573 (ii) Mohit Singhal & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarkhand & ors., Cr. Appeal No. 3578/2023 decided on 01.12.2023 (iii) Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618; (iv) Abhishek & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr., S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 5616/2016 decided on 28.04.2020 (v) Nipun Aneja & ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 654/2017 decided on 03.10.2024; and (vi) Kheta Ram Vs. State of Raj., SB Cr. Revision Petition No. 1048/2024 decided on 04.02.2015. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, submits that at the stage of framing charge, the Court is not required to meticulously evaluate the evidence but has to see only if a prima facie case is made out or not on the basis of material collected during investigation. He further argued that the trial court has rightly framed charge after evaluating the entire material as has been produced by the prosecution, hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the record carefully. [2025:RJ-JP:37225] (3 of 5) [CRLR-546/2008] 6. This fact is undisputed that the scope of interference at the stage of framing charge is very limited. This is unquestionable position of law that the trial court is required only to see whether there exists sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. A mini trial or roving inquiry is not permissible at this stage. 7. It is trite law that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to thoroughly consider 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 the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, the Court may sift the evidence adduced by the prosecution. At this stage, the court has to consider material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for presumption 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. 8. This is well accepted norm that revisional jurisdiction of High Court is very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or any error of jurisdiction or law. 9. At the initial moment of framing charge, the Court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence. At this juncture, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor any weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. The High Court could not evaluate and appreciate the record and documents filed with it. It is not the proper stage. The Court ought to have [2025:RJ-JP:37225] (4 of 5) [CRLR-546/2008] examined documents on record for the limited purpose of determining whether offence under relevant provision has been committed or not. 10. The statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Ramjani Khan, Radheshyam Saini, Ravi Shankar, reflect an assertion that accused has given threatening to the deceased Narsingh Ram to return the money otherwise to face consequences. Father of the deceased and other witnesses Rampal and Madan Lal both have stated that just two days before the incident, the petitioner gave warning including threat to kill the deceased. The prosecution has also submitted eight slips and page of register having incriminating notes against the petitioner. 11. Therefore, in the present case, apart from the suicide note there exist statements recorded during the course of investigation which goes to show that on account of threatening given by the accused, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to commit something which perhaps he would not going to do. 12. The material collected during investigation as discussed above shows that there are prima facie allegations against the petitioner which requires adjudication during trial. 13. Arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to the appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken at this stage and can only be looked into at the stage of trial. 14. In view of what has been discussed above, the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner render no assistance to him. [2025:RJ-JP:37225] (5 of 5) [CRLR-546/2008] 15. Accordingly, this court does not find any illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the impugned order of framing charge against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC. 16. Resultantly, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. 17. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Bmg/