The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C should be exercised sparingly and in rare cases, and that the court should not function as a Court of Appeal or revision.

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this court in terms of Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter for short as Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 27th of December, 2010 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu titled State versus Ajeet Singh and others, whereby the accused Ajit Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Jatinder Singh have been charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 302, 201, 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code, for short as RPC and 4/25 Arms Act, while as accused Ranjodh Singh, Narinder Singh and Azmer Singh have been charge-sheeted under Sections 302/120-B of the RPC.

2. Precisely the grounds taken by the writ petitioners are; that there is no admissible evidence which can be made basis for forming an opinion to presume that accused are involved in the commission of offences under Section 302 and 120-B of RPC and there is not even an iota of evidence which can be made basis for holding that accused have hatched a conspiracy as is alleged in the instant case and for which the accused have been charge-sheeted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Ranjodh Singh, in support of his case, made a reference to the statements made by PWs Manmohan Singh and Satinder Paul Singh recorded before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class under Section 164-A of the Cr.P.C, the Photostat copy whereof is annexed with the writ petitions.

4. Mr. B. S. Salathia, also argued that ingredients which constitute conspiracy in terms of Section 120-B of RPC are missing.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner-Narinder Singh also made reference in support of his arguments to the document-phone calls which is part of the material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation and which is made part of the final report in terms of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C, the Photostat copy whereof is also annexed with his writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for respondents have resisted the petitions on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to presume that accused have hatched conspiracy and are involved in the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 and 120-B of the RPC. In this connection the counsels made reference to the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, particularly of Balwinder Singh and Paramjeet Singh read with statements of Manmohan Singh and Satinderpaul Singh, under Section 164-A of the Cr.P.C.

7. Meeting the other contention of the counsel for the petitioner that essential ingredients constituting conspiracy are not made out in terms of Section 120-B RPC, the senior counsel Mr. Sethi argued that as far as direct evidence vis-à-vis conspiracy is concerned there rarely can be a case where evidence is available to that extent, because the conspiracy is actually the meeting of minds and when, where & how such meeting takes place is difficult to be ascertained, however, this is one such rare case where direct evidence is also available and the same is to be determined during trial. He further submitted that for prima-facie purpose there is not only statement of two witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 164-A of the Cr.P.C, but of other two witnesses also which do disclose the ingredients of conspiracy.

8. It appears that the case came up for consideration before the trial court and learned counsel for the accused Ranjodh Singh and Narinder Singh resisted the framing of charge.

9. In order to keep the record straight, it would be apt to state herein that one of the accused namely Jeet Singh S/o Swarn Singh is absconding and proceedings under Section 512 of the Cr.P.C. have been initiated against him.

10. The trial court after considering the material available before it, came to the prima-facie conclusion, in terms of the mandate of Chapter XXIII, of the Cr.P.C, that there are reasonable grounds to presume that the accused are involved in the commission of offences punishable under Section 302, 120-B of the RPC read with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document