M.N. Bhandari, J.

By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 18.11.2014, framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 506 IPC. A further challenge is made to the order dated 31.03.2015, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that charge has been framed in ignorance of Section 245 Cr.P.C. In the pre-charge evidence, material was not brought, which may lead to conviction, if it remains unrebutted. In absence of evidence, the court below committed grave illegality in framing charge for the offence under Section 506 IPC.

3. Referring to complaint, he submits that a telephonic call was said to have been received by the complainant-non-petitioner where he was given threatening. The complaint discloses telephone number from where threatening was given. To confirm the call, complainant dialled said number immediately. The call was found from telephone booth. The operator of the telephone booth informed about the call by some one five minutes back but who was the person is not coming out from the complaint and the evidence led by the parties. The voice is not recognised by the non-petitioner, otherwise he would not have called the number from where call was received. In absence of evidence, framing of charge is in ignorance of Section 245 Cr.RC.

4. To make an offence under Section 506 IPC, there has to be material in the form of call recording or voice identification. In absence of it, the accused cannot be convicted. If the accused cannot be convicted in absence of evidence, he needs to be discharged with the aid of Section 245 Cr.RC.

5. In the present case, even in the pre-charge evidence, the complainant could not bring material, which may lead to conviction, if it remains unrebutted. It is apart from the contradiction in the statement of two witnesses. The courts below failed to consider all those issues while passing impugned-order for framing of charge and dismissing the revision petition. This court may interfere in the impugned orders with a direction for discharge of the petitioner.

6. A reference of similar complaint before the Magistrate in Gujarat has been given. It resulted in an order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. i.e. process was not issued. It was in absence of call recording and voice identification. The revision petition was also dismissed thereupon. Looking to the facts aforesaid also, impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for non-petitioner-complainant opposed the petition. He submitted that evidence led by the petitioner is sufficient to lead to conviction, if it remains unrebutted, it is a case where the non-petitioner had received a threatening call while he was at Jaipur. The threatening was with dire consequences. The non-petitioner-complainant then lodged complaint. The statements of the petitioner and non-petitioner were recorded. The threatening was given in reference to a case lodged at Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. The case at Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat was lodged subsequent to a case at Mumbai. The non-petitioner had received threatening in the call, thus became uneasy. He had immediately consulted his Advocate. To have confirmation of the call, he had dialled the same number. It was from the local booth where call was confirmed by a person about five minutes back. The aforesaid has been taken as suspicion of the call by the petitioner. While framing charge, only prima facie evidence is to be seen. The non-petitioner has given sufficient evidence to show receipt of the call and threatening, it is by none else but by the petitioner, thus case is not made out to discharge the petitioner by exercising powers under Section 245 Cr.P.C. The court below, thus rightly passed order framing charge under Section 506 IPC. In view of the above, none of the grounds raised by learned counsel for petitioner are made out for quashing of the orders. Accordingly, petition may be dismissed.

8. I have given my thoughtful