IMPORTANT POINT
Charges under serious IPC sections require clear prima facie evidence; lack thereof necessitates quashing such charges.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :

The challenge in this revision is made to impugned order dated 18.07.2022, passed in Sessions Trial No. 301 of 2021, State vs. Rajiv Joshi and others by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital (“the case”). By the impugned order, the court below has held that there is prima facie evidence to frame charge under Section 302, 201, 202, 34 IPC against the revisionist and co-accused. Accordingly, charges were framed on the same day.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The case is based on an FIR No. 242 of 2020 Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital under Section 302, 34 IPC. According to it, the informant had admitted his son at Adarsh Jivan Nasha Mukti Kendra, Kamluwaganja Road, Haldwani (“the centre”) on 23.10.2020 for his treatment. On 02.11.2020, the informant was told that his son Praveen Tamta has died. When the dead body reached to his residence, he saw that there were multiple injuries marks on his body. It revealed that the deceased Praveen was mercilessly beaten up. In the FIR, it is recorded that the revisionist who is owner of the centre and other co-accused killed the deceased and sent his dead body to his family. It is this FIR, in which after investigation, Charge Sheet No. 242 of 2020 was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Against the revisionist, charge sheet was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 202 read with 34 IPC.

4. After hearing the parties, at the stage of framing of charge, the court below held that there is prima facie evidence and framed charge under Section 302, 201, 202, 34 IPC against the revisionist and other co-accused.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is owner of the centre. He did not commit any maar-peet. He did not assault the deceased. He was not in his centre whole day, when the deceased was beaten up by the co-accused. He would submit that all the witnesses that were examined during investigation have stated that other co-accused did maar-peet with the deceased and when the revisionist reached at the centre at 7:00-7:30 in the evening, he immediately released the deceased, who was tied with a pillar, made him comfortable and took him to the hospital. It is argued that at the most the revisionist could be charged for the offences punishable under Section 201, 202, 34 IPC, because there is a statement of the doctor that when taken to hospital, the revisionist told that the deceased had fallen down from the roof. It is argued that it may at the most be and act of giving wrong information or causing disappearance of evidence. Therefore, it is argued that the impugned order as well as the charge made, so far as, it they relates to the revisionist deserves to be set aside and the revision allowed with the direction to the court below to hear the revisionist afresh on the charge.

6. Learned State counsel would submit that charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist for offences punishable under Sections 201, 202, 34 IPC. The court below framed charge based on interpretation.

7. It is a revision against order framing charge and charge. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned order. The law is well settled that the courts should be much slow in interfering in any revision against order framing charge.

8. In the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this aspect observed as hereunder:-

“12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scru