. . .... 4m. OF “1%. 00m; OE cRmmAL LRggEn-UEg. nnnnn A;“ > r ‘ .L‘HJz. HIGH COURT OF JUDECATURE . cmmm. mvmsmnwo. ”$7 A998. v 1. Prahlad ‘Singh $on of Nagarmal ’znanSal, a? * aged 5o years, .Ajay Kumar son of Kishanchand Bansal, E a ‘ aged 22 years, § N Anil Kumar son of Kishanchand Bansal, I aged 28 years, (3% All Resid ents of Manendragarn Road, “Mo; S I ya Ambikapur; Police station mbikapur, é?“ AJVOCQh District Surguja (MP). . . . . gPmcayg. (1—— Vs. ,: r V PEAR. State of Mamlya Pradesh NomAPrLiC NE. , GRIMIZNAL REVISION UKWER SECTION 39w CRIMINAL REVISION NO. ll57 OF l92§ ?rah1ad Singh and two others Vs, The state of Madhya Pradesh O R D E R The applicants are aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.1998, passed by the First Addi iona1 5e5$10ns Judge, Ambikapur, framing charge against them for an offence punishabie under section 506-8 of the Indian Penal Cadea ,2“ Learned cuunsel for the applicants urged that ere was no evidence on record to base such a charge, an§ that the charge was vague. 3. Counsel for the State supported the order stating that the evidence of the prosecutrix and hor landwlady was sufficient to make out a prim; facie case, and the threats continued to be given forva long duration. No specific date could, therefore, be given and the charge did not suffer from any defect. S‘ 4. Having heard counsel for both sides_and having perused the documents on record, we are of the View that this petition must be dismissed. -The proceedings commenced on the written report of the prosecutrix lodged»atgPolice-Station Ambikapur. There are specific allegations of criminal intimidation by the applicants" The allegations were repeated in her statemtnt recorded V. .-\ th 2 y the Police. And there is evidence of her land—lady alsc on the sama point. A$ the stage of charge, Courts are required to Sae only whether a Egima facie case exist$. They are not expected to analyse the evidence in detail at that stage. And looking ta the material on record, it cannot be said that there is no prima‘facie evidence in this case. making to tba continuing nature of the o£fence the charge also cannot be said to he vagueo 1 5. This revision petition is. therefore, dismiseeé. i {ii ‘L ##r #7:?” ’ G “. sw; JUDGE \ aA-2d1999 b