ORDER

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition, challenge is made to the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Court has framed charge against the petitioner under Sections 307, 326/34 of the IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the impugned order and other material available on record.

3. After going through the order impugned dated 25.05.2022, this Court is not satisfied with the manner in which the order framing charge has been passed, it seems that the submissions made on behalf of the accused and the facts in nutshell have not been incorporated. It is true that at the stage of framing charges, meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required to be done nor the probative value of the defence is to be taken into account but at least, bare minimum fact necessary to show constitution of offence as well as the mandate of law contained under Sections 227 & 228 of the Cr.P.C. are to be taken care of. A prima facie opinion that there are reasonable grounds to presume that the offence has been committed by the accused before the Court, is to be formed and that is to be done after taking into consideration the case of the prosecution and the submission made on behalf of the accused as well after going through the facts of the case.

4. This Court while dealing with the issue of hearing on the point of charge, has passed an order in the matter H.G. Grover Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1356/2022 decided on 08.12.2022). The relevant part of the order is being reproduced as under:-

12. The charges are proposed to be framed on the relevant material available on record. It is not to be seen that whether the evidence produced on record is sufficient to record conviction or not, thus, probative value of defence is not required to be seen but at the very least, application of mind to see the sufficiency of material on record is required so as to put the accused to face the rigour of trial. Neither the evidence is required to be discussed in detail nor is the same required to be appreciated.

13. The stage of framing of charge is a very significant step in a criminal case and it is the duty of the court to frame a charge against the accused in accordance with the statutory terms stipulated in Section 228 of CrPC. Section 227 of the Code provides that if it is the consideration of the judge, post careful weighing of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the prosecution as well as the accused on this count, that there is lack of adequacy in the grounds on the basis of which the proceedings can move forward against the accused, then the judge shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for said discharge.

14. The provision under Section 228 begins with the phrase ‘after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid’ which means that similar to the consideration and hearing done before discharging an accused under Section 227, before framing a charge as well, the judge is required to hear the contentions proffered by both the sides as well as consider the record of the case as well as the documents submitted therewith. It is further laid down under Section 228 that after such consideration and hearing, if the judge has formed an opinion that there is ground for ‘presuming’ that the accused has committed an offence, then the judge shall frame the charge. The judge shall frame the charge in writing if the offence is exclusively triable by Court of Session and if the case is not exclusively triable by Court of Session, then the judge may frame the charge and order the transfer of the case for trial to the appropriate Magisterial Court.

15. Another mandatory requirement as per Section 228 is that