2011 Supreme(All) 2383

[2011(9) ADJ 14 (NOC)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
VINOD PRASAD, J.
NARESH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9038 of 2011 connected with Criminal Revision No. 512 of 2010, decided on 26th August, 2011)

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 161, 226, 227 and 228—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 307 and 120-B—Framing of charge—Discharge—Refusal of—Present petitioner named in FIR—There is a clear averments against him—Merely on volatile plea of false implication because of rivalry is no ground to discharge him—No scope for petitioner to be discharged—Act of trial Judge is not in consonance with prosecution allegations and materials contained in case diary against petitioner—Framing of charge is not an idle formality—An accused can be charged only with an offence—Which he has committed as it is discernible from material placed before trial Court—Only evidence against them comes from affidavits and statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.—But they have been cited as witnesses in charge-sheet—All that their statements reveal ground/motive which is insufficient to frame charges of criminal conspiracy against revisionists—Prima facie on examination of prosecution case—There was no sufficient material to charge accused revisionists for offence of conspiracy—Trial for sake of trial, should not be permitted—If evidence against accused is observed—Then, the same has to be taken into consideration by trial Judge at time of framing of charge—Judge is not mere post office to frame charge at behest of prosecution—Judicial mind is to be applied to facts of case—Basis of negation not mentioned by trial Judge—There was absence of prima facie material to prosecute revisionists with aid of Section 120-B of IPC—Impugned order set aside.