The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lower court must comply with the provisions of Section 245(1) of the Code in framing the charge against the accused.

1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') is for quashment of the order dated 31/3/09 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh in cf4ninal revision No. 22/2007 affirming the order framing charge dated 15/6/07 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh in criminal complaint case No. 392/02 whereby after examining the witnesses before charge learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh has framed the charge of the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.3 Pumachand Mali has died.

3. Quashment is prayed on the ground that without complying the provisions of Section 245(1) of the Code Court below has framed the charge and thereby committed an illegality.

4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition is at the instance of respondent No.1 complaint case has been registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code after summoning the accused persons Court below has examined the witnesses before charge in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter -XIX-B of the Code and after closing of the evidence of the complainant before charge Court below has framed the charge against the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State are heard.

6. Order impugned, copy of the evidence of the witnesses, copy of the complaint, copy of the order of the trial Court perused.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Court below has not considered the case at the time of framing of the charge in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 245 (1) of the Code.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent No.2 opposed the petition and submits that petitioners have not been able to make out an exceptional case for invoking extraordinary inherent jurisdiction.

9. Order dated 15/6/07 reveal that after perusing of the documents and case Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh has framed the charge on the basis of prima facie case against the petitioners plea of the petitioners were recorded and case was posted for evidence before charge.

10. Copy of the documents, statement of the witnesses reveal that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh has recorded the statement of Loch an Prasad, Parmanand Patel, Jagatram Patel, Joginder, Jagatram Singh before hearing on charge in accordance with Section 244 of the Code. Therefore, there was no propriety for again fixing the case for evidence before charge and even when charges framed then there was no stage for fixing the case for evidence before charge.

11. The case is based on complaint specific procedure in terms of Chapter XIX-B of the Code has been provided by the Legislature which provides the evidence before charge and after taking such evidence before charge Court is required to hear the party and passed the order framing charge or order of discharge in accordance with the provisions of Sub Section-l of Section 245 of the Code.

12. Consideration of Charge under Sections 245(1), 239 & 240 of the Code are different and not one and same. At the time of framing charge in terms of Sections 239 & 204 of the Code prima facie material for framing of the charge, strong suspension that accused had committed an offence are sufficient for framing charge but after recording the evidence before charge the consideration for framing charge is not similar as regard under Sections 239 & 240 of the Code. At this stage the Magistrate is required to evaluate the evidence recorded under Section 244 that whether the evidence against the accused if unrebutted would warrant the conviction of the accused then charge may be framed interalia if the evidence recorded under Section 244 of the Code would not be sufficient for conviction of the accused if unrebutt