CR._“I<§_§_; KNOJ30£2907 PETETICWER Gopai Das Valaxyani son of Shli Ghan$hyam Das Vakuyani agsd about 51 years, presently posted as Manager, Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Branch Chhuikhadan, Tehsjl and Police Station-Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon(CG), resident of Lalbagh, Rajnandgaon(CG) I “é’ersus RESGPGN13ENT Manharan Das Son of Shli Adhjn Dag Manilq3m1', aged ab‘mlt 32 years , resideni 01‘ Tikripara, Chhaiikhadan Police Statien & Tehsil—Chhuik‘nadaii Disuict- Rajnw1dgaon{€G) Aggearance: Shn’ Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner. gRAL ammR ioaomzao'n Heard on admission. Being aggxievcx‘l Wiih the older dated 28.9.2006, passed in Criminai Revision No. 147] 2005 by the Addix‘ional Sessions Judge, Khaixagarh, Dishict~Rajlxandgaou, ai'gising out of the order dated 8.8.2005, passed m Cmmmai Case No.349j 2003 by the Addi‘eonal Chief Judicial Magishate, Khajragarh, District- Rajnamigaml; whereby, 'the said Court had framed chaxges under Section 420 [PC against the petitioner, the peeiioner has med this er. Misc. Petition. ' The brief facts are that on a complaint being nied by the respondent, the trial Court took cognizance and after recording the evidence under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C., registered the complaint and thereafter, after recording the pie—charge M 2 Cr.M.P.N0. 130/2007 staienmnt, by order dated 8.8.2005, directed for flaming {he charges under Section 420 IPC. A perusal ofpara 12 of the complaint would Show that the complainant made allegations that this peti‘rioner, who was working as a Manager m Durg—Rajnandgaoxi Gramjn Bank, Branch-Chhuikhadan, managed for purchasing a Maxim van after obtaining loan from a :hiemcer on the margin money deposited bV‘ the compiaiuant showing that everything is being done 011 the name of the compiainant bui in fact, he purchased the vehicle on his own name by cheating the complainant and all this was not known to him. When it come to the noiice of the complainant, he iiied a criminal complaint, in which, the statements of witnesses were recordeii and after taking evidence before the charge. the aforesaid charges were framed against the petitioner. At the stage of framing of charges, the Court has only to see whether primafade, there was sufficient ground to pmceed against the accused. At this stage, the Court could not appreciate the evidence to arrive at a particular conclusion. The, aforesaid exemise of annreciattng the material produced by the prosecution at the stage of naming of charges is Wholly unjustified. Please see {266w 2 S€$ 57, State afFdf. Vs. 3.3. Johari & Others. Further, it has been held in the matter of Om Wati (Smt) and another Vs. $t¢xt_ev,_“ Through Qeihi Admn. Ami others, {2001} 4 SCC 333. that it is the statutory obligation of the High Court not to interfere at the initial stage ofii‘aming the charges merely on hyyothesis, imagination End far-fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Self—restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice staring the court in the face. Unscrupulous iitigants should be discouraged from protracting the triai and preventing cuhnination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalied-for and unjustified litigation under the cloak ot‘technieaiities ot‘law. Cr.M.P.‘No.130/2007 M In vicw of the above, if we examine the contentS of the complaint and also the contents of the evidence befme charge, prima facie, it doeS not appear that on the basis of such maten‘al, the charges couid not be framed against the petitioner. There appeals to be no infirmity in the orders, passed by the 2 Courts beiow, warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition has no merits. The same is not Worth admission and is dismissed at the motion stage itseif. "’f. hen/wi- _ h I Sunil Kumar Sin a sunita