At the stage of framing the charge, the court should only consider whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused based on the material on record, and should not weigh the evidence as if conducting a trial.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur(for Short ’learned Revisional Court’) in Criminal Revision Petition No.12/2021 (CIS No.46/2021) whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and upheld the order framing charge dated 01.02.2021 passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur (for Short ’learned Trial Court) in case No.217/2019 by which charge for the offence under Section 353 IPC has been framed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court had wrongly framed the charge for offence under Section 353 IPC against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the learned Revisional Court erred in dismissing the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is no evidence to frame the charge for offence under Section 353 IPC against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after investigation, Police has not found the charge proved against the petitioner but learned trial Court had wrongly believed the statements of the witnesses-Dheerendra Pal, Prateek Choudhary, Devendra Kumar Gupta and Mukesh Chand. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the charges could not be framed merely on the basis of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C without taking the previous statement recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial Court had not considered the transcript and CD while framing the charge for offence under Section 353 IPC against the petitioner. So, order of the learned trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court be set-aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the order of the learned trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court do not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity, so, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The provisions under the Cr.P.C. with respect to charge are reproduced as under:-

"227. Discharge. -If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

’228. Framing of charge.-(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, [or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate] shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have interpreted the provisions in the understated judgements, that