B.R. Arora, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated December ; 4, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision -petition filed by the State of Rajasthan and ordered for framing of the charges against the petitioners.
(2.) KASHI Ram, a Beldar, working in the Irrigation Department, lodged a First Information Report on April 24, 1987, against Mani Ram, Manphool, Makhan Singh and Sultan Ram. The police registered the case against the petitioner under Sections 365, 323, 332 and 363 I.P.C. The police, after necessary investigation, submitted the challan against the accused under Sections 353 and 332 I.P.C. and submitted the Final Report, so far as the offences under Sections 363 and 365 I.P.C. are concerned. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused -petitioners and issued process. Thereafter, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate heard the arguments for framing the charge and, by his order dated February 18, 1988, came to the conclusion that the story put -forward by the defence appears to be more probable and, therefore, no case for framing the charges against the accused -petitioners under Sections 353 or 332 I.P.C. is made -out. He, therefore, discharged the accused for offences under Sections 353 and 332 I.P.C. Dissatisfied with the order dated February 18, 1988, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, discharging the accused, the State preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, who, by his order date December 4, 1990, set -aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, allowed the revision petition filed by the State and directed the learned Magistrate to frame the charges under Sections 332 and 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. against the accused. It is against this order dated December 4,1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, that the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar.
(3.) AT the time of framing the charge, one has to simply see the broad aspect of the case and the close and critical scrutiny of the evidence is not required to be made at this stage. At the time of framing the charges, the Court is only required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find -out if the facts merging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence. Even strong suspicion at this stage is sufficient to frame the charge against the accused. From the materials on record, I am of the opinion that prima facie the materials for framing the charge exist in the present case and the rest is the matter of trial. It is not expected that this Court, while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C, should proceed to discuss all such evidence available on record to see whether the evidence constituted the offence because if that will be done then it may prejudice the case of the petitioners themselves and that will amount to discharging the functions of the trial Court itself. By evaluating the evidence on record, I am simply to satisfy myself whether prima facie there is some material existing on record which justify the framing of the charges against the petitioners. I am of the view that there are sufficient materials on record, on the basis of which the charges under Sections 332 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. can be framed against the accused -petitioners. In this view of the matter, the learned lower Court has not committed any illegality in directing the trial Court to frame the charges against the petitioners under the aforesaid Sections.;