%%l?lil»l» : Shri T.P. Cr. M.P. No. 269 o? Shyam Singh & Stateot'C.G. Post for: o-^l^-" ' ^ Qr°S Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge CL_M,P,No,_2e9oi2007 Sinale : - Hon'bie Mr. T.P«Sharnia, Shyam Singh Rathore. Aged about 32 years. (DEAD) IVlahesh Singh Rathore, Aged about 30 Years. Both S/o Late Uday Chand Singh, R/o Shanti Nagar, Kumharpara, Qr. No.18/2 Biiaspur (C.G.) At present P.S. Liiwa, Distt. Howra, (West Bengal) RESPON.DENT PROSECUIIQN Versus State of C.G. through S.H.O. of P.S. Civil Lines, Bliaspur, District Biiaspur (C.G.) Petitlon under Sectlon 482 ofthe Code ofCrirrilnaS Procedyre, 1913 Present: Shri Ravish Verma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Akhil Mishra, Panei Lawyerfor the State. QR'D.ER ( Passed on^=@—February, 2008 ) This revisjon is directed against the order dated 18.07.2006 passed by Addltional Sessions Judge, Biiaspur in Criminai Revision No.51/2005 affirming the order dated 12.01.2006 in Crimlnal Case No.1622/2004 passed by Chief Judicial Maglstrate, Bilaspur. 2. During course of arguments, iearned counsel for the petitioners submlts Petitloner No.1 has died and prays he does not wlsh to pres the petition relating to petitloner 0.1-Shyam Singh Rathore. 3. The short point argued on behaSf of the petltioners is, whether the order framing of charges for offence punishabie under Sectlon 452 of the I.P.C. by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bliaspur is suffering from manifest defect. '--.< 4. Present petitioner is faclng triai before Chief Judiclal Magistrate, Bilaspur. Before framing of the charge, comp!ainant Rajkumar and petltioners arrived at compromlse and in accordance with the compromise charges under Sectlon 506 of the i.P.C. were not framed but after alleged compromise, charges of 452 of the I.P.C. were framed againstthe petitioners. Order framing charge was upheid in revision. 5. It is submitted cn beha!f of the petitioner that at the time of compromise, compiainant has deposed before the Court that incldent took place out of the house and it is aiso submltted that the trial Court was not justifled In framing of charge under Section 452 of the i.P.C. when the statement of compiainant statlng that incident took place out of the house was cn record and the order framing charge suffers from manifest defect. 6. !t is settled position of law that at the time of framlng charge meticuious examlnation of the evidence is not required. Serious doubt that accused has committed the ofFence is sufficient for framing charge. !t appears from the order impugned that apart from the statement of compiaint, deposed during compromise, other material evidence sufficient for framing of charge for the offence punishabSe under Section 452 was availabie on record and tria! Court had after considering the materiai available on record, framed the charge. Orders of the Court beSow are based on evidence avallable on record do not suffer from any iilegality. 7. Consequently, petition being devoid of merit Is dismlssed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Kvr