KULVEER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants as well as the learned AGA for the State-respondent. Present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.12.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 628 of 2008 whereby the Court below has framed charges against the applicants to face trial under section 365 IPC.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appli cants has submitted that there is no legal evidence on record for framing of charges against the applicants, and also that the applicants were not even named in the first information report, dated 1.7.2007. It is further contended that the dead body of the deceased was not recovered either on the pointing out of the applicants or on the pointing out of any of the persons who were named in the first information report. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the names of the applicants figured in the statements of Jagdish, Smt. Munni Devi, Smt. Vimla Devi, Ramu, co-accused Sanjai and Om Prakash alias Dangar, copies of which has been filed as Annexures-3 to 8 to the pres ent petition. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the statements of the afore said persons do no specify as to from whom they enquired about the accused persons' alleged involvement in the com mission of the alleged offence and only vague averments have been made by these persons in their statements that they had made enquiry from their relatives. LEARNED Counsel for the applicants submits that these statements are part of the case diary/charge-sheet. LEARNED Counsel for the applicants further submits that the appli cants cannot be tried or charged under sec tion 365 IPC only on the basis of the state ments given by co-accused, namely Sanjai or Om Prakash alias Dangar, and has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar. 1964 (1) ACC 160 (SC) = AIR 1964 SC 1184.

(3.) LEARNED AGA has submitted that the Court at the stage of framing of charge, exercise a limited jurisdiction, and it has only to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out but cannot delve deep into the matter for the purposes of appreciation of evidence. LEARNED AGA has re lied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Prafulle Ku mar Saniant and others, 1979 (3) SCC 4. Stri Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathnmal Chordia and oth ers, 1989 (26) ACC 417 (SC) = 1989 (1) SCC 715 State of Orrisa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (51) ACC 209 (SC) = 2(K)5 (25) AIC 90 and Some Chakravorty v. State through CB1, 2007 (5) SCC 430 in support of his contention. Heard learned Counsel for the appli cants and perused the order impugned as well as the averments made in the present petition.