IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the material brought on record by the prosecution at the stage of framing of charges and found that the charges were not supported by the evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Nurpur, Kangra framing the charges against the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were referred-before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that respondent No.2/complainant made a complaint to the police stating that Savita — wife of the informant— had lodged an FIR No.289/2015 against Rishi Bhardwaj, which is pending before Sessions Court, Una. Rishi Bhardwaj called the informant on 18.10.2016 between 10-10:15 AM thrice and told him that in case, he or his wife would depose against him, he would kill both of them. He also asked them to compromise the matter and offered Rs.10,00,000/- for settling the matter; however, the informant refused to accept the money. The accused-Rishi Bhardwaj abused the informant and threatened to shoot him at Indora. He also threatened to get the services of the informant terminated. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. During the investigation, the involvement of Dinesh Sharma, the present petitioner, was also found. The police obtained the call detail records and found that Dinesh Kumar had talked to Rishi Bhardwaj many times between September and October 2016. Dinesh Kumar had also appeared with the informant for the test of ADA. He had also obtained the information under the Right to Information Act and had filed a false complaint against the informant to pressurize him. Hence, the present accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC. Consequently, a challan was filed before the Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to frame the charge against the accused-Dinesh Kumar for the commission of offences punishable under Section 195(A), 504, 506 read with Section 120B of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court framing the charge, the present revision has been filed asserting that the accused filed a complaint before the Secretary to the Government of H.P. (Home) against the selection of the informant on 22.09.2016 much before the registration of the FIR. The Joint Director(Prosecution) conducted the fact-finding inquiry and recorded the statements of both sides. The name of the accused -Dinesh Kumar was not mentioned in the FIR and it was mentioned for the first time by the informant in his supplementary statement made on 22.11.2016. The accused Dinesh Kumar joined the investigations as was directed to do so by the police. The accused-Dinesh Kumar had also filed an original application before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal against the selection of the informant. He also obtained the information under the Right to Information Act from District Attorney, Kangra, which shows that the FIR was registered without the permission of the office. The learned Trial Court did not consider the material facts and framed the charges merely upon the conjectures and surmises. No specific allegation was made against the accused-Dinesh Kumar. The Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear and entertain the present matter; therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order framing the charge passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

5. I have heard Mr. N.S. Chandel learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State and Mr Vikas Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.2/informant.

6. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in framing the charge against the accused. Even if the allegations made aga