PAWAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on 29/06/2019 on behalf of Pawan Nayak. Kishan Nayak and Pawan Dubey were also included as petitioners in this petition but during argument on 10/02/2020, counsel for the petitioners withdrawn the petition on behalf of them. Hence, the arguments have been heard only in reference to Pawan S/o Nanhelal Nayak (petitioner no. 1).

(2.) The police Garhakota filed challan no. 285/2017 under Sections 354, 354 (ka)(iv), 294 and 506/34 against eight accused persons including the petitioner. Upon the basis of aforesaid challan, J.M.F.C. Garhakota registered Criminal Case no. 142/2017 and framed the charges on 25/10/2017 against the petitioners under Sections 354 (ka) (iv), 354/149 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by filing criminal revision no. 1/2018 but the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli, District Sagar dismissed the aforesaid revision on 20/05/2019.

(3.) Petitioner challenged both orders i.e. 25/10/2017 passed by J.M.F.C. and the order dated 20/05/2019 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli, District Sagar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no any evidence is available against the present petitioner to proceed further. The charges can be framed against the accused only in the condition when the sufficient evidence is available to proceed further. In this case, it is clear from the entire papers submitted along with the charge-sheet that there was no any sufficient evidence against the present petitioner. Therefore, the trial Court committed the mistake by framing the charges against the petitioner. Hence, both orders are liable to be quashed.