Important Point—Petitioners are innocent unless their guilt is proved beyond any shadow of doubt before Trial Court.

01. The petitioners are seeking relief with reference to the powers available in the Court under Section 561-A Cr. P.C. for quashment of FIR bearing No. 55/2015 registered at Police Station Kral Khud, Srinagar, under Section 436 RPC as well as the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, in furtherance of the final report submitted in the form of Challan No. 12/2016 as also the charge framed against them by the learned trial Court vide order dated 6th of December, 2016.

02. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that case FIR No. 55/2015 stands registered at Police Station Kral Khud, Srinagar, under Section 436 RPC against the petitioners and, on completion of the investigation, the final report in terms of Section 178 of the Cr. P.C. stands submitted before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar, which, in turn, has been transferred to the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The learned trial Court, as stated, has framed the charge against the petitioners on 6th of December, 2016, and, on commencement of the trial, same is pending.

03. The petitioners have questioned the very basis of the complaint being false and frivolous, based on no evidence and aimed at harassing the petitioners for no good cause.

04. The petitioners, while demonstrating the facts and the grounds of challenge, have discussed the material evidence available with the trial Court as procured by the investigating authorities. Reference is made to the seizure memo, thereby seizing Charcoal, burned pieces of wood and burned cloth from the scene of occurrence with further discussion on chemical analysis of the opinion furnished by the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Srinagar. It is stated that the Forensic Science Laboratory, Srinagar, has certified that no inflammable substance was detected in the exhibit number H-10/16, therefore, the investigating authorities have no material with reference to the commission of offences by the petitioners which can form the basis for proceeding against them. It is also stated that the learned trial Court, while scanning the material evidence brought on record by the prosecution, has not considered the disclosure of offences on the basis of such material against the petitioners. In essence, the petitioners have assailed the evidence brought on record by the prosecution so as to demonstrate that no case is made out for framing of charge against them, as has been done by the learned trial Court.

05. On the set of facts and the grounds urged, coupled with the submissions made, it is stated that the charge framed by the learned trial Court is without any basis and without scanning the material evidence brought on record by the prosecution.

06. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the record and considered the matter.

07. Though, the petitioners seek quashment of charge framed against them by the learned trial Court, but the order, in terms whereof, the charge has been framed against them has not been brought on record.

08. Be that as it may, there is no question of quashing either the FIR or the subsequent proceedings commencing thereon pending before the trial Court after framing of the charge.

09. Framing of charge is the power of the trial Court on simple scanning of material evidence brought on record by the prosecution. There is no need to discuss in detail the material evidence brought on record by the prosecution. It is made clear that, in terms of well settled principles of law, the petitioners are innocent unless their guilt is proved beyond any shadow of doubt before the trial Court, so where is the question of abuse of the process of law on part of the learned trial Court dealing with a case which has been brought before it by the prosecution in terms of applicable laws.

10. Law on the subject is no more res integra vis-à-vis seeking quashment of the FIR(s) r