(1.) This petition under section 482 of the Crimial P.C. 1973 has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashment of the order dated 15.1.2013 passed by I ASJ Tarsia, District Hoshangabad, in Criminal Revision No.UR/2012 affirming the order dated 20.6.2012 passed by JMFC Tarsia, District Hoshangabad, in Criminal Case No.760/2011 whereby the courts below have taken cognisance of the offence under sections 295, 109 and 120-B of the I.P.C. and framed charges against the petitioners on the FIR lodged by complainant.
(2.) Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 14.1.2011 complainant Aftar Hussain lodged a report at Police Station Tarsia to the effect that he is caretaker of Jama Masjid and when he came to open the gate of Jama Masjid at about 5.00 AM, he saw a plastic bag lying on first stair of the Masjid in which dead body of a piggy tied with a lemon, Sindur and chilly covered with red cloth. It is alleged that an attempt was made to defile the place of worship and religion of the first informant and the Muslim community. It was further alleged that an attempt was made to assault the religious faith and belief of Muslims in order to create violence in the locality. On the information of the informant, Crime No.11/2011 was registered against the petitioners for the offence under sections 295 of the I.P.C. at Police Station Tarsia. During investigation co-accused Raja was arrested and on the confessional statement given by him, present petitioners were also made accused in the case. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against co-accused Raja along with present petitioners before the JMFC concerned. The learned JMFC took cognisance of the offence against the petitioners and framed charges against them for the offence under sections 295, 109 and 120-B of the I.P.C. The order of framing was charge was assailed before the appellate court. The appellate court vide impugned order affirmed the order of framing charge and rejected the appeal of the petitioners. Being aggrieved therewith, this revision petition has been filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no evidence on record to connect the present petitioners with the crime. They have been arrayed in this case merely on the ground of confessional statement of co-accused Raja, who has already expired. The confessional statement given under his memorandum is not admissible in evidence against the present petitioners and the statement of co-accused Raja recorded under section 164 Crimial P.C. 1973 does not admit any ingredients of the offence. There is no averment against the present petitioners to connect them with the crime. Therefore, the learned courts below have committed grave legal error in taking cognisance against the petitioners ignoring the aforesaid aspects of the matter. Thus, if the proceedings continue against the petitioners, it would amount to misuse of the process of court and cause grave injustice to the petitioners. Hence, prayer is made to quash and set aside the impugned orders and further proceedings pending before JMFC be also set aside.