IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 69 of 2011 1. Rajendra Prasad Rayal S/o Sri Chandi Prasad Rayal, Vill. Nepali Farm P.O. Satyanarayan Distt. Dehradun. 2. M.R. Dugtal S/o Late Mani Ram Dugtal, Circle Officer Kalyan Ganj Farukhabad, U.P. 3. N.C. Johri S/o Sri Jagdish Sahai, Police Station Sarsa Hardoi, U.P. ….…..Revisionists Versus 1- State of Uttarakhand. 2- Mr. Jitendra Kumar Inspector (C.B.C.I.D) Division Meerut Distt. Meerut. ……Respondents Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, present for the revisionists. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate, with Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate, for the Intervener Vivek Kumar Khanna @ Jugla. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) This revision is directed against the order dated 17.01.2011, passed by 3rd Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trials No.415 of 2008 and 92 of 2010, whereby said court has framed the charge of offences punishable under Section 218, 120B I.P.C., against the revisionists namely Rajendra Prasad Rayal, M.R. Dugtal and N.C. Johri. 2 3) It appears that some incident said to have been taken place in May, 1996, in respect of which, a Non Cognizable Report was registered on 25.05.1996, at Police Station Kankhal, relating to offences punishable under Section 352, 504 I.P.C., lodged against the unknown persons by Nitin Gupta. Thereafter, on 01.06.1996, murder of one Pankaj Khanna @ Bugla said to have been committed, in respect of which Crime No. 75 of 1996, was registered, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., against one Rajesh Bhardwaj and another. On the very day (01.06.1996) the aforesaid Non Cognizable Report was registered as Crime No. 78 of 1996, and converted into offences punishable under Section 307, 506 I.P.C., in addition to 352, 502 I.P.C. It is alleged that the Investigating Officer, Head Mohrir and Station House Officer, who were posted in Police Station-Kankhal, made certain manipulations in the Non Cognizable Report and instead of “JUGLA” word “BUGLA” was substituted, thereby attempt was made to shield the main accused Rajesh Bhardwaj in the murder case. It further appears that after the Police submitted its report in connection with Crime No. 75 of 1996, further investigation was directed, vide order dated 13.06.1997, and the investigation was later transferred to C.B.C.I.D. Said agency (C.B.C.I.D) filed the impugned charge sheet against the revisionists, who were Police personnel and against Rajesh Bhardwaj. 4) Learned counsel for the revisionists pleaded that the revisionists are innocent. They have committed no forgery. However, having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view 3 that at the time of framing of the charge, it is not required to be seen by the trial court, whether the revisionists are innocent, or not. What is required to be seen is that whether there was sufficient material to frame the charge, or not. From perusal of papers on record, it appears that at the stage of framing of charge, there was sufficient material to frame the charge, relating to offences punishable under Section 218, 120B I.P.C., against the present revisionists. They might be innocent, but that fact will be examined by the trial court after recording of evidence, whether, they have actually committed any offence, or not. 5) In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case, as there appears no illegality in the framing of charge. 6) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, pending before the trial court, the revision is dismissed. (Interim order dated 25.04.2011, stands hereby vacated). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 02. .2011 12 JM