GARG, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dtd. 13. 4. 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 130/2003 by which he ordered that charges for offence under Section 411, 413 and 120b be framed against the present accused petitioner as well as other accused persons, namely, Manoj, Badal, and Madan Mohan and also directed framing of charges against Virdi Chand for offences under Sections 411, 413, 120b under Section 379-401 I. P. C.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: i) On 18. 2. 1998, one Deep Chand lodged a report in the Police Station Rawat Bhata District Chittorgarh stating inter alia that on the night of 15. 2. 1998, idol of Natraj had been stolen away from the temple and upon this, a case for the offence under Section 379 I. P. C. was registered and FIR No. 41/98 was chalked out and investigation was started. ii) During investigation of the case, the accused petitioner was got arrested on 14. 8. 2003 and other accused persons, namely, Manoj, Badal, Madan Mohan and Virdi Chand were also got arrested. iii) During investigation, the police found that duplicate stolen idols were got prepared by the accused petitioner and some other accused persons so that fact of stolen of original idols might remain in secret. The alleged duplicate idol of Natraj was seized by the police on 13. 11. 1998 and the original idol was first sold to Madan Lal, Manoj and Badal and thereafter it was purchased by the accused petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 20 lacs and thereafter the accused petitioner sold it to Kasmin, an English people for a heavy consideration and for the recovery of original idol, which is at present lying at London, proceedings under Section 166a Cr. P. C. have been initiated by the Police. iv) The police further came to the conclusion that the accused petitioner along with other accused persons was dealing with sale and purchase of stolen idols and he used to sell them for a valuable consideration. v) After usual investigation, the police submitted challan for the offences under Sections 379, 401, 411, 413 and 120b I. P. C. against the accused petitioner and other accused persons in the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. vi) Thereafter the learned Additional Distt. Judge (Fast Track), Chittorgarh through order dtd. 13. 4. 2004 directed framing of charges against the accused petitioner and other accused persons as stated above and this order dtd. 13. 4. 2004 has been challenged in this revision petition. In this revision petition, the main submissions of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner are as under: i) That there is no evidence on the record to show that the accused petitioner has committed the offence under Section 413 I. P. C. for which he has been charged. ii) That the sheet on which charges were framed is dtd. 25. 11. 2003, though the charges were framed against the accused petitioner on 13. 4. 2003, meaning thereby that the charges were drawn on 25. 11. 2003 and thus, order dtd. 13. 4. 2004 whereby charges were directed to be framed against the accused persons was futile exercise as the learned Additional Sessions Judge had already made up his mind for framing of charges without hearing the accused petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order dtd. 13. 4. 2004 and submitted that same does not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and hence does not call for any interference by this Court. Heard and perused the case file. POINT NO. 1. So far as point No. 1 is concerned, there is statement of one Satya dev recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and he has stated that near about five years back, another accused Madan Agarwal and the accused petitioner came to him and they gave him photograph of idol of Natraj and asked him to prepare the same and another accused Madan took a sum of Rs. 5000/- from the accused petitioner and then, gave it to him as advance for preparing the idol of Natraj and thereafter, that idol was prepared by him and handed over to them.
(3.) THERE is another statement of Abhay Singh recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and he has stated that he had remained driver with the accused petitioner since 1984 to 2000 and he has further stated that the accused petitioner used to deal with the sale and purchase of stolen idols etc. He has also admitted the fact that the accused petitioner gave order for preparing duplicate idol of Natraj and the accused petitioner used to purchase stolen idols. Thus, from the above, evidence to say at this stage that no case for framing charge under Section 413 I. P. C. is made out cannot be accepted because it is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. For the above proposition, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M. P. vs. S. B. Johari and Ors. (1), may be referred to. In another case State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi and Ors. (2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that High Court's power to quash the charge should not be exercised except for strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and in order to avoid the abuse of process of Court, the charge needed to be quashed. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that High Court should not sift the available medical evidence and quash the charge. ;