At the stage of framing of charges, the court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence, and the impugned order must not suffer from any legal infirmity to warrant interference.

JUDGMENT

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14 (A) (1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred with the following prayer:

'It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the order passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Cases, Sri- Ganganagar, in case number 11/2016 (State V/s Munsaf Ali & Ors.) by which the charges framed against the appellants U/s 307/149, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149, 427/149, 147, 148 IPC & U/S 3 (2) (V) of SC/ ST Act vide order dated 17.10.2019, may kindly be quashed and set aside.'

3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar passed the impugned order, dated 17.10.2019, framing charges against the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 307/149, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149, 427/149, 147, 148 I.P.C. and under Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 upon filing of a complaint by the complainant Nanak Singh, alleging therein that, the accused-appellants and the complainant were engaged in an old land dispute, and that on 16.07.2013, the accused-appellants attacked the complainant and his family members with weapons and also opened gunfire, while abusing them with casteist slurs.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity on the ground that the learned Court below has not rightly appreciated the overall facts and circumstances of the case. And that, the injured eye witness, namely Veer Singh, has denied the alleged incident itself.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is specifically not made out, given that no person involved in the alleged incident has suffered from injuries dangerous to life.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgments rendered in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2012) 11 SCC 476, State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu (2017) 3 SCC 198, Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Crl. Revision Petition No. 82/2008, decided by this Hon'ble Court on 21.02.2013), Hari Kishan Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 551, State of M.P. Vs. Saleem & Anr. (2005) 5 SCC 554, Jage Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 366, Ishwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1976 Cri. L.J. 1883 and Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor however opposes and submits that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order only after taking into due consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and an appreciation of the evidence on the record before it.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, has only framed the charges against the accused appellants. And that, interference in an order, dealing with framing of charges is limited to certain grounds, namely a perverse or illegal order, and that is not the case in the present appeal.

9. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and, perused the record of the case and the judgments cited at the Bar.

10. This Court observes that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, is a well reasoned speaking order which lays out that the accused-appellants, armed with weapons and guns, verbally abused the complainant and his associates with casteist slurs and threatened their lives.

11. This Court further observes that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned Court below is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors (2012) 1 S