PINKI KUMARI SHAW Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitioners along with five others were placed on trial before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 4th Court.

(2.) BARRACKPORE , in connection with Sessions Case No.390 of 2013 and charged under Section 341/302/34 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of fr aming of charge, the petitioners have approached this court, for quashing of charge, on the ground that the materials gathered during the investigation has not disclosed their involvement in the commission of the offences. It is vehemently conten ded by the learned Counsel of the petitioners that in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 CrPC, nothing has been attributed against them and therefore, the impugned order of framing of charge be quashed. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 on the other hand contended that there are sufficient materials collected during investigation showing the petitioners ' direct involvement in the commission of the offence and at the stage of framing charge, it is not permissible for the trial court to enter into a detailed inquiry as to the sufficiency of the materials propos ed to be relied upon against the accused by the prosecution and as to whether the charge framed

(3.) AGAINST the accused is likely to su cceed. It is further contended that, while considering the question of farming of charge the court is to hear the parties and to take into account the materials available from the records of the case and to form an opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offe nce. In this regard, the provisions of Section 227 and 228 of the CrPC has been brought to the notice of this court. She then contended that the impugned criminal revision be dismissed.