The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient prima facie evidence to frame charges and the limitations of the court's inquiry at the stage of framing charges.

JUDGMENT :

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri. Tulsi Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the Stat and perused the record.

2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.06.2014, passed by 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar by means of which charge has been framed against the applicant under Section 507 IPC in Criminal Case No. 636 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 660 of 2013, Police Station Sector-24 Noida, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., and during the investigation, his name came to light on the basis of the statement of co-accused Pawan Gujar. In which Pawan Gujar has stated that the present applicant is also involved with co-accused persons. It was also mentioned in the fard recovery and arrest memo that after the arrest, the applicant stated to police that on persuasion of co-accused Pawan Gujar he had called Dr. Vinay Bhatt through PCO to demand money. It is further submitted that there was no recovery from the applicant, and there is no evidence which shows that in any manner, the applicant had sent any letter or any other communication to intimidate the victim. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the applicant even if the entire allegations in the statement of co-accused persons are taken as true on its face value, even then, no case under section 503 or 507 IPC is made out.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the only evidence against the applicant, which is the basis of framing the charge, is the statement of co-accused Pawan Gujar in which he had stated that the present applicant also involved in this offence. However, there is no other evidence which could connect the applicant that he made any call to the victim or had sent any letter or any communication to the victim to extract money. For making out of offence under Section 507 IPC, there must be criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication or other mode from whom the threat comes, but in the present case, admittedly there is no evidence that the applicant had sent any anonymous communication. Section 507 IPC is being quoted as below:-

"Section 507. Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication.— Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section."

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court already settled legal position in the judgment of State of Andhra Pradesh vs Golconda Linga Swamy And Anr; (2004) 6 SCC 522 that at the time of framing the charges u/s. 228 or 240 Cr.P.C., only the material collected during the investigation is to be seen and that material must show possibility about the commission of crime as against certainty. Paragraph No. 10 of this judgment is being quoted as under:-

"10. In all these cases there was either statements of witnesses or seizure of illicit distilled liquor which factors cannot be said to be without relevance. Whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the concerned accused persons guilty has to be considered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed, if the