1 2026:CGHC:203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1531 of 2025 1 - Raviram Netam S/o Hariguno Netam Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Jhargaon P.S. Devbhog Distt. - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 2 - Taruni Sen Netam S/o Raviram Netam Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Jhargaon P.S. Devbhog Distt. - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh (Accused) ... Applicants versus Station House Officer, Police Station Devbhog, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : None, even in the second round. For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 02/01/2026 1. Since no one appears in the case in repeated calls for hearing of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to decide this revision by invoking the provisions of Section 444 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 403 of the CRPC). Though all the procedural laws have as its foundation the maxim "Audi Alteram Partem” and at all stages wherever the need be there are provisions for issuance of notice and making sure that the party may be heard VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.13 15:13:09 +0530 2 before passing of any order, yet, as per the specific provisions of Section 444 of BNSS (Section 403 of the CRPC), it is clear that a party may or may not be heard, as the Court may decide while exercising its power of revision. Since no one appeared on behalf of the applicants on repeated occasions, this Court proceeds to decide the criminal revision. 2. The provisions of Section 444 of BNSS (Section 403 of CRPC) do not violate the principles of natural justice. See "Mahabir Motor Co., Bhagalpur v. State of Bihar and Others (AIR 1956 Pat. 437), "Sau. Ranjana Shivaji Rakhpasare v. Shivaji Bapu Rakhpasare and Another" (2004 Cri.L.J. 145), and "Panatar Arvindbhai Ratilal Vs State of Gujrat and others" (1991) 1 GLR 451. 3. This is a criminal revision under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS, 2023’) against the impugned order dated 08-10-2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2025, whereby the charges against the applicants for the offence under Sections 182, 211, 195 read with Section 34 of IPC has been framed. 4. The applicants are the accused persons in the Sessions Case No. 23 of 2025 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, which arose out of the Istagasa No. 1 of 2024, registered at Police Station Devbhog, District Gariyaband, for the offence under Sections 182, 211, 195, 34 of IPC. In the said Istagasa, it was alleged that on 02-01-2024, the accused persons were coming to his house by their Activa scooter after having pledged their ornaments for Rs. 50,000/- 3 at Odisha, and on the way, the petrol in their vehicle ran out, and they were forced to walk. At about 7:00 PM, near Tetalkhunti canal, some persons assaulted them and looted Rs. 50,000/-, for which they lodged a report to the police. Their complaint was inquired by the SDO Police, Mainpur, and it was found that the present accused persons have made a false complaint about the loot of Rs. 50,000/-, and then the Istagasa has been prepared against the present applicants, which has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devbhog, and since the offence of Section 195 of the IPC was triable by the learned Sessions Court, the same was committed to the learned Sessions Court for its trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband has framed charges against the applicants on 08-10-2025 for the offences under Sections 182, 211, 195 read with Section 34 of IPC, which is under challenge in the present criminal revision. 5. I have perused the documents annexed with the present criminal revision with respect to framing of charges by the learned trial Court. 6. The document (Annexure A/3), which is the inquiry report submitted by the SDO Police, Mainpur to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Gariyaband, dated 20-02-2024, in which he reported that, the present applicants have made a false complaint with respect to the loot of Rs. 50,000/- and as per the statement of the witnesses, the presence of the present accused persons were not found on the alleged place at the time of alleged incident, and there was no commission of any offence with them, and it is only to avoid the liability to repay the loan amount, the entire incident is framed by the present applicants. 4 7. After having gone through the inquiry report dated 20-02-2024 and the statements of the witnesses annexed with the present criminal revision, namely; Dumarlal Nagesh, Mansingh Sonwani, Nemichand Jain, Maheshwar Dhruw, Jiran Singh Manjhi, Humendra Kumar Durga and Hridyanand Pathar, there is sufficient material to frame charges against the applicants, which has rightly been appreciated by the learned trial Court and has framed charges vide order dated 08-10-2025. 8. While considering the scope of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered in the case of “M.E. Sivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru”, (2020) 2 SCC 768, in Para 17 and 18 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the legal principles applicable in regard to an application sitting discharge, which is as under :- “17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions viz. P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and discern the following principles: 17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. 17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution. 17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. 5 17.4. 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 offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial". 17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion. 17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. 17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true. 17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused. 18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression, "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any. produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).” 6 9. In the matter of “Ajay Singh and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and others” (2017) 3 SCC 330, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 9 of its judgment held that : “9. Chapter XVIII CrPC provides for trial before a Court of Session. Section 227 empowers the trial Judge to discharge the accused after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution and on being satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The key words of the section are "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused". Interpreting the said provision, the Court in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala has held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge 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. 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. 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.” 10. Further, in the matter of “Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation”, (2010) 9 SCC 368, in Para 21 of its judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that : “21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 d and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: 7 (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 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 9 opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the 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. 8 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.” 11. Recently, in the matter of “Ram Prakash Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, AIR 2024 SC 3540, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered in Para 12 to 22 & 30 that : “12. We have already considered the meaning of the expression "the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith" relying on the decision in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra) only to re-assure as to what are the materials falling under the said expression and thus, available for consideration of an application filed for discharge under Section 227, Cr.PC. In the light of the same, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that at the stage of consideration of such an application for discharge, defence case or material, if produced at all by the accused, cannot be looked at all. Once "the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith" are before the Court they alone can be looked into for considering the application for discharge and thereafter if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused concerned then he shall be discharged after recording reasons therefor. In that regard, it is only appropriate to consider the authorities dealing with the question as to what exactly is the scope of consideration and what should be the manner of consideration while exercising such power. 13. The decision in Yogesh alias Sachin Jagadish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra' this Court held that the 9 words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" appearing in Section 227, Cr.PC, postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case revealed from the materials brought on record by the prosecution in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out. In the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan and Ors. this Court held that at a 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 materials to find out whether the facts taken at their face value disclose the existence of the ingredients constituting the offence. At this stage, only the probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter to hold a mini-trial. 14. In the decision in BK Sharma v. State of UP, the High Court of judicature at Allahabad held that the standard of test and judgment which is finally applied before recording a finding of conviction against an accused is not to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. It is just a very strong suspicion, based on the material on record, and would be sufficient to frame a charge. 15. We are in agreement with the said view taken by the High Court. At the same time, we would add that the strong suspicion in order to be sufficient to frame a charge should be based on the material brought on record by the prosecution and should not be based on supposition, suspicions and conjectures. In other words, in order to be a basis to frame charge the strong suspicion should be the one emerging from the materials on record brought by the prosecution. 16. In the decision in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and Anr., this Court held that the word 'ground' in Section 227 Cr.PC, did not mean a ground for conviction, but a ground for put- ting the accused on trial. 10 17. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Anr., after extracting Section 227, Cr.PC, this Court in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 held thus: - "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 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 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." 18. In paragraph 13 in P. Vijayan's case (supra), this Court took note of the principles enunciated earlier by this Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal which reads thus: - "10.… 11 (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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. (2) 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. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or 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 appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." 19. In the light of the decisions referred supra, it is thus obvious that it will be within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused concerned has been made out. We are of the considered view that a caution has to be sounded for the reason that the 12 chances of going beyond the permissible jurisdiction under Section 227, Cr.PC, and entering into the scope of power under Section 232, Cr.PC, cannot be ruled lout as such instances are aplenty. In this con- text, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Om Parkash Sharmav. CBI. Taking note of the language of Section 227, Cr.PC, is in negative terminology and that the language in Section 232, Cr.PC, is in the positive terminology and considering this distinction between the two, this Court held that it would not be open to the Court while considering an application under Section 227, Cr.PC, to weigh the pros and cons of the evidence alleged improbability and then proceed to discharge the accused holding that the statements existing in the case therein are unreliable. It is held that doing so would be practically acting under Section 232, Cr.PC, even though the said stage has not reached. In short, though it is permissible to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused, on appreciation of the admissibility and the evidentiary value such materials brought on record by the prosecution is impermissible as it would amount to denial of opportunity to the prosecution to prove them appropriately at the appropriate stage besides amounting to exercise of the power coupled with obligation under Section 232, Cr.PC, available only after taking the evidence for the prosecution and examining the accused. 20. Even after referring to the aforesaid decisions, we think it absolutely appropriate to refer to a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kaushalya Devi v. State of MP. It was held in the said case that if there is no legal evidence, then framing of charge would be groundless and compelling the accused to face the trial is contrary to the procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While agreeing with the view, we make it clear that the expression 'legal evidence' has to be construed only as evidence disclosing prima facie case, 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith'. 13 21. The stage of Section 227, Cr.PC, is equally crucial and determinative to both the prosecution and the accused, we will dilate the issue further. In this context, certain other aspects also require consideration. It cannot be said that Section 227, Cr.PC, is couched in negative terminology without a purpose. Charge sheet is a misnomer for the final report filed under Section 173 (2), Cr.PC, which is not a negative report and one that carries an accusation against the accused concerned of having committed the offence (s) mentioned therein. 22. In cases, where it appears that the said offence(s) is one triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall have to commit the case to the Court of Session concerned following the prescribed procedures under Cr.PC. In such cases, though it carries an accusation as aforementioned still legislature thought it appropriate to provide an inviolable right as a precious safe guard for the accused, a pre-battle protection under Section 227, Cr.PC. Though, this provision is couched in negative it obligated the court concerned to unfailingly consider the record of the case and document submit- ted therewith and also to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused is available thereunder. Certainly, if the answer of such consideration is in the negative, the court is bound to discharge the accused and to record reasons therefor. The corollary is that the question of framing the charge would arise only in a case where the court upon such exercise satisfies itself about the prima facie case revealing from "the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith" against the accused concerned. In short, it can be said in that view of the matter that the intention embedded is to ensure that an accused will be made to stand the ordeal of trial only if 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith discloses ground for proceeding against him. When that be so, in a case where an application is filed for discharge under Section 227, Cr.PC, it is an irrecusable duty and 14 obligation of the Court to apply its mind and answer to it regarding the existence of or otherwise, of ground for proceeding against the accused, by confining such consideration based only on the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. To wit, such conclusion on existence or otherwise of ground to proceed against the accused concerned should not be and could not be based on mere suppositions or suspicions or conjectures, especially not founded upon material available before the Court. We are not oblivious of the fact that normally, the Court is to record his reasons only for discharging an accused at the stage of Section 227, Cr.PC. However, when an application for discharge is filed under Section 227, Cr.PC, the Court concerned is bound to disclose the reason(s), though, not in detail, for finding sufficient ground for rejecting the application or in other words, for finding prima facie case, as it will enable the superior Court to examine the challenge against the order of rejection. 30. In the light of the records of the case and the documents submitted therewith, it can only be found that the said finding of the Trial Court on the ground to proceed against the appellant is based on suppositions and suspicions, having no foundational support from the materials produced by the prosecution. With respect to the first part of the above extracted recital from the order of the Trial Court, it is to be noted that it is nobody's case that the appellant was in the Police Station or informed of the sufferance from chest pain. As relates the second suspicion, it is to be noted that the very Trial Court itself, in the very order dated 19.04.2007 itself, stated that in Crime No.351/1993 under Section 392. IPC the deceased Ram Kishore was only a witness and that the amount in cash and the draft involved was that of the appellant. It is also the case of the prosecution that the said case was registered, at the instance of the appellant against unknown persons. Hence. when the appellant who lost the money went to Police Station along with the witness thereof, how can it be presumed by the Court as a strong case for suspicion for commission of the 15 offence of criminal conspiracy. especially taking note of the very case of the prosecution that causative incident for the case occurred when Ram Kishore was returning after collecting the business proceeds of the appellant and that the appellant was informed of it over telephone by Ram Kishore. When there is no case for the prosecution that the appellant pointed the fingers at Ram Kishore how the lodging of the complaint, apprehending custodial death of Ram Kishore who was appellant's clerk for about 13 years, which caused the registration of custodial death case under FIR No. 371/1993 can be taken as a ground for framing charge against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, IPC, 120-B with the aid of Section 34, IPC.” 12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order of framing charge against the applicants. Accordingly, the criminal revision is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved