Order on Board

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNSS’), calling in question the legality and correctness of the orders dated 04.09.2025 and 29.12.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G., in Sessions Case No. 63/2025, whereby charges have been framed against the applicant under Sections 318(4) read with Section 49, 317(4) read with Section 3(5), 111 & 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant, Rupesh Kumar Sahu, who runs a choice centre at Station Road, Rajnandgaon, lodged a report on 23.01.2025 stating that co-accused- Ashutosh Sharma, being his customer, requested him to provide his Bank of Baroda account on the pretext that his own account had been frozen. Acting on this request, the complainant shared his bank account details, in which money was deposited on 6–7 occasions and thereafter withdrawn. On one such occasion, an amount of Rs.90,000/- was deposited and immediately transferred. Subsequently, after 2–3 days, the complainant’s account was frozen by the cyber crime authorities, and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was kept on hold.

3. During investigation, co-accused- Ashutosh Sharma, in his memorandum statement, stated that bank account details were procured on commission through persons, including the present applicant, and were used for fraudulent transactions. Based on traced mobile numbers, the present applicant, Shrenik Sanghvi alias Mihir, was found involved. It is alleged that the applicant also admitted his role in organised criminal activities. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and other co-accused persons, including for the offence under Section 111 of the BNS.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant confines his challenge to Charge No. 3 framed under Section 111 of the BNS. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and his name does not find place in the FIR or in the statements of the witnesses. It is further submitted that there is no material available in the charge-sheet to attract the ingredients of Section 111 of the BNS. He also submits that the essential requirement of “continuing unlawful activity” is not satisfied and the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, it is contended that the framing of the said charge is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the revision and submits that the trial Court has rightly considered the material available on record and that the charge-sheet prima facie shows the involvement of the applicant along with the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, a detailed appreciation of evidence is not required and only prima facie material is to be seen.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. It is well settled position of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of accused could not be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. At the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence on record and nor conduct a mini-trial. The court would only consider whether prima facie material is there or not to proceed with the trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 198, while dealing with the issue, held that at the stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that