RAMESH CHANDRA TIWARI Vs. RAGHUNANDAN LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) AN FIR was lodged by respondent Sri Raghunandan Lal Sharma as case crime No. 21 of 2004, under Section 409 I. P. C. , P. S. Bichhuan, District Mainpuri.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, it cannot be said that no offence at all is disclosed against the present applicant. Learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 6 SCC page 522. IN paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has relied upon the categories, which are mentioned in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 SCC (Criminal) 426. After relying upon the said judgment in Bhajan Lal's case, the Apex Court in paragraph 10 of the said judgment of 2006 has been pleased to observed thus: IN all these cases there were 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 accused persons concerned 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 there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty. That being so, the interference at the threshold with the FIR is to be in very exceptional circumstances as held in R. P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal cases.