IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.406 of 2005 Date of Decision 18.11.2010 Mukhtiar Singh son of Moti Ram ...... Petitioner VERSUS Mukhtiar Singh son of Hazara Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr.N.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Aggrieved against the order dated 15.06.2004, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, discharging the accused-respondents (herein referred as 'the respondents) from the charges under Sections 323, 394, 342, 364 and 506 IPC, the petitioner-complainant has preferred this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that at the time of framing the charge, the Court should not have taken the defence evidence into consideration. It is well settled by now that the charge was supposed to be framed on the allegations, as contained in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the evidence attached thereto. The Court is not to go by the defence whatever may be led by the accused at the appropriate stage of trial. At the stage of charge, Court is not to go into the fact if the trial would result into acquittal or conviction but the Court is to examine if from the allegations and the record, a prima facie case is made out against him for Criminal Revision No.406 of 2005 -2- framing the charge. This legal proposition has been settled by the Apex Court in case State of Orissa versus Debendra Nath Padhi 2005 (1) RCR (SC) 297 wherein it was observed as under:- “At the time of framing a charge the trial court can consider only the material placed before it by the investigating agency, there being no requirement in law for the court to grant at that stage either an opportunity to the accused to produce evidence in defence or consider such evidence the defence may produce at that stage.” Having gone through the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court has taken note of the various documents, as produced by the respondents-accused, therefore, the order suffers from perversity and deserves interference by this Court. Resultantly, I accept the present petition, set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. The respondents-accused are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17.01.2011. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 18.11.2010 mamta-II