@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Miscellaneous Petition no. 23/2011 APPELICANTS: 1. Am'l Kumar S/o Ram Kumar aged about 21 yeam. 2. Ajay Knmar S/o Ramadhar Aged about 33 years. 3. Kamini W/o ’I‘ularam Aged about 23 years. All the above petitioners are Resident of Village Dhaurabhafha, Police Station Hirrec; District Bilaspur (co), VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through RESPONDENT: Police Station Hirree District Bilaspur (C.G.)‘ APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF TIE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (SB :I-Ion’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Presenti— Mr. Ravi Maheshwan', Advocate for the petitioners/applicants. Ms. Sunita Jain, P.L. for the State] respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 25/01I2011) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 10/8/2010 passed by 5‘31 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in criminal revision No. 86/10 ailinning the order &aming charge dated 3/ 5/ 20 10 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha District Bilaspur in criminal case No. 252/09 whereby Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha District Bilaspur has famed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506 Part-2, 323, 325, 394/34. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 3. Copy of the charge sheet and copy of order impugned perused. $3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although at the ime of framing charge Com is not required to consider the material in its evidencary value but at the time of framing charge prosecution is requiled to produce more substantial material sumcient for framing of the charge. 5, Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that First Information Report lodged by the complainant did not disclose any commission of oh‘ence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code‘but subsequent recorded statement under Section 161 of the Code discloses the commission of aforesaid oh‘ence therefore considering the discrepancy in the First Information Report and statement of same person charge framed under Section 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable under the law. While framing such charge Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction vested on it resulting into miscarriage ofjustice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent r opposed the petition and submits that Court below has framed the charge on the basis. of material produced on behalf of the prosecution. 7. At the time of framing charge Court is required to see prima facie material sufiicient for framing of the charge. Meticulous scrutiny of evidence is not required, even strong suspension that petitioners have committed the onence is sufficient for framing of the charge. In the First Information Report, person who has lodged First Information Report has not stated relating, to commission of Robbery but his statement recorded under Section t ”Kw Cg 161 of the Code and statement of other witnesses mvéal that at the time of mmmission cf offence petitioners have also forcefully removed and took Mangalsutra from the body of Chandra Diwakar, these facts are su§1cient for framing of the charge for the ooence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. While naming the aforesaid charges trial Court has not committed any illegality requiring any interference in excise of extraordinary inherent juiisdiction in terms of Section 482 of the Code. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/— T.P. Sharma Judge