At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face-value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2019 in S.C.P.P.M. No.97/2018 passed by learned Special Judge MP/MLA, Bhopal, whereby the learned Special Judge has framed the charges against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 342, 323 read with Section 149, 327, 394 and 506-II of IPC.

2. Case of prosecution in brief is that police has initially registered the FIR against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 344, 34-A, 506 and 147 of IPC. It is mentioned in the FIR that complainant-Devendra Singh Bhadoriya has informed the police that on 14.02.2015 at about 09:30 pm, when he was in his house, two four wheeler came in the door of his house in which Ram Lakhan, Sanju Singh (who is the son of Ram Lakhan Singh), Vinod Singh Kushwaha, Sitaram along with 3-4 other persons were come and Sanju stated him that they are interested to elect him as Vice President of Janpad Panchayat but he has to arrange Rs. 10,00,000/- for the same, therefore, he arranged some Rupees and ornaments. After that, they took the complainant from Bhind to Gudgaon, during the said period, they switched off the mobile phone of the complainant, they armed with pistol and Katta and committed marpeet with him and also threatened him. Thereafter, they confined him in agricultural farm house was of one Captain, although he does not know his name. On 09.03.2015, they left him in Janpad office and after completion of concerned election, he reached in the house of accused persons and demanded the aforesaid money, then petitioners/accused again confined him in room and committed marpeet with him.

3. After registering the FIR, police has completed inquiry and filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 344, 347 506 and 147 of the IPC, thereafter, learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioners/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 342, 323 read with Section 149, 327, 394 and 506-II of the IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in framing of charges for the alleged offences against them as there is no material collected by the prosecution during investigation. He also submits that police has received an information from complainant-Devendra Singh and recorded the statement of complainant-Devendra Singh under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., but there is no memorandum of the petitioners/accused has been recorded by the police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and nothing has been seized from the petitioners/accused, therefore, in absence of memorandum and seizure, no office is made out against the petitioners for the alleged offences. There is no material available on record with regard to Sections 363 and 365 of IPC against them because according to the complaint, complainant himself accompanied with them, so it is made clear that petitioners/accused was not taken the complainant forcefully. He further submits that complainant went himself with his own will and he stayed with them, therefore, no case is made out against them for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the IPC. He also submits that in the statement of the complainant, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he has not specified that who committed marpeet with him, hence, no case is made out under Section 323 of IPC against him. Further, no ingredients are available on record for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, so no offence is also made out under Section 394 of IPC against him. Petitioner- Ramlakhan Singh is a political person and due to political rivalry, complainant has lodged a false case against him and all other petitioners because they connected with the petitioner-Ramlakhan Singh.

5. On the other hand, learned P.L. opposes the prayer and submits that there is sufficient material is available on the