High Courts should exercise inherent powers under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings when they are found to be mala fide, based on inherently improbable allegations, or constitute an abuse of process, especially where no prima facie case is made out.

1. The present petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) have been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 64/2021 and Criminal Revision No. 63/2021, whereby the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of framing of charge passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 2458/2018 arising out of Crime No. 119/2018 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.).

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case that, before the learned trial Court, namely Poonam Mishra and Priya Mishra in Criminal Revision No. 63/2021 and petitioner-Anvesh Mishra in Criminal Revision No. 64/2021, were prosecuted on the basis of a First Information Report lodged by the complainant Suman Singh, wherein Crime No. 119/2018 was registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) against these three persons.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.04.2018 at about 8:00 PM, upon hearing noise of quarrel outside her house, the complainant/respondent No.3 Suman Singh came out and saw that her husband Umesh Pratap Singh was being abused in filthy language and assaulted by all the three with slippers and a cable wire. When she, along with her son Harsh Singh, intervened to pacify the matter, the petitioner- Anvesh Mishra allegedly caught hold of her hair, threw her on the ground and assaulted her with hands and fists. Further, her son Harsh Singh was pushed by the Poonam Mishra and Priya Mishra, as a result of which he fell on the ground. When her brother Rahul Singh/respondent No.4 intervened, all the three persons also assaulted him. As a result of the said assault, her husband Umesh Pratap Singh sustained injuries on his right wrist, back and left hand and her brother Rahul also sustained injuries.

4. On 03.04.2021, after hearing arguments on the point of charge, the learned trial Court framed charges against all the three accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 325 and 323 IPC for allegedly abusing the complainant Umesh Pratap Singh in a public place and voluntarily causing grievous hurt to him and simple hurt to Harsh Singh. Further, charge under Section 506 Part-II IPC was framed for allegedly extending threats to kill the complainant Suman Singh and her husband Umesh Pratap Singh, thereby causing criminal intimidation.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order of framing of charges, the present petitioners/accused (who were revisionists in Criminal Revision No.64/2021 and Criminal Revision No.63/2021) preferred a criminal revision before the revisional Court. The learned revisional Court, after considering the material available on record and the settled legal position with regard to framing of charges, held that at the stage of framing of charge only a prima facie case is to be seen and the defence raised by the accused persons cannot be appreciated. It was further observed that the grounds raised by the revisionists/accused, such as non-seizure of certain articles, non-examination of certain witnesses and alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution case, are matters relating to defence which can be tested during trial and are not sufficient for discharge at the stage of framing of charge. The revisional Cou