Bajrang Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

: Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 13/08/2026

#1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2025, whereby charges have been framed against the applicant for commission of offence under Sections 111(2)(£)/3(5), 317(2)/3(5), 317(4)/3(5), 317(5)/3(5), 318 (4)/3(5) and 238/3(5) of BNS, 2023 as the applicant was allegedly involved with other co-accused with common intention for committing online fraud of Rs. 88,00,000/-. 2 2.The prosecution case in brief, is that FIR bearing Crime No. 14 of 2024 was registered on 21.08.2024 against the co-accused on the basis of the complaint made by complainant wherein the present petitioner was not included as accused for committing the above stated offences for collecting money from various persons on the basis of online share trading business. The police on the basis of FIR has initiated investigation and during course of the investigation it was found that the mobile phone of the present applicant was utilized for the above stated commission. Thereafter notice under Section 94 BNSS was issued to the present applicant alleging that by utilizing the mobile of the present applicant offence has been committed. Learned trial Court, upon consideration of the material available on record, framed the aforesaid charges against the applicant vide order dated 28.02.2026. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid framing of charges, the applicant has preferred this criminal revision before this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.

#3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that from bare perusal of the FIR prima-facie, no material has been collected against the applicant by the prosecution. She would further submit that the prosecution has failed to place on record any call details or any other electronic evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged commission of crime. She would further submit that The FIR has been filed against the unknown person and the complainant has not identified the present applicant, as such the charges levelled against the applicant may kindly be set aside. 3 4.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that interference in the stage of charge sheet is very limited unless and until the applicant is able to demonstrate that no prima-facie case is made against the applicant and in the present case, the prosecution has collected material against the applicant which prima-facie, reflects involvement of the applicant in the crime in question. He would further submit that notice under Section 94 of BNSS was issued to the accused on 21.09.2024 wherein it has been alleged that mobile No. 7415756375 which belongs to the applicant has been used for commission of offence, therefore, he was directed to submit the record or reply which was not found satisfactory accordingly he was arrested and arrayed as accused, therefore, prima-facie material is available against the petitioner which is sufficient to proceed against the petitioner for the charges leveled against him and would pray for dismissal of the petition.

5.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

#6. From perusal of the charge sheet as well as documents annexed with the revision, it is quite clear that notice under Section 94 BNSS was issued to the applicant, alleging that mobile owned by the applicant was utilized in the commission of offence. Even the applicant has not denied that the mobile No. 7415756375 does not belong to the applicant which clearly indicates prima-facie involvement of the applicant in the crime in question, therefore, at this juncture this Court cannot interfere in framing of charge. Even all the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant is her defense which can be very well taken in the evidence 4 and can be considered by the learned trial Court after appreciating evidence material on record.

#7. The scope of interference at the stage of framing of charge is well settled and at this stage, the Court is required to examine whether the material placed by the prosecution, if accepted at its face value, discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to conduct a roving or meticulous examination of the evidence or to determine whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed in establishing the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the material collected during investigation cannot be said to be so deficient or inherently improbable as to warrant interference with the order framing charges.

#8. The observation made by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs is fortified by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Manendra Prasad Tiwari Vs. Amit Kumar Tiwari & another [(2022) 20 SCC 757] wherein it has been held in paragraphs 23, 24 & 25 as under:- “23. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. [see State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi, (2000) 8 SCC 239]. 5

#24. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. 25. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding.”

#9. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Orissa Vs. Pratima Behera [AIR 2025 SC 218] has held in paragraphs 10, 11 & 12 as under:-

#10. We may hasten to state at this juncture that though at the stage of framing of issue what is to be seen is only whether there is a prima facie case to make the accused to stand the trial at the trial, certainly, the presumption of innocence should be in favour of the accused. 11. Taking note of the fact that in the case on hand, the High Court set aside the charge framed against the respondent while exercising the revisional power, it is relevant to refer to the decision in Minakshi Bala v. Criminal Appeal No.3175 of 2024 Sudhir Kumar & Ors4. This Court on the question of quashing of charge by the High Court made the following pertinent observations: 7…To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional 6 cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence.

#8. Apart from the infirmity in the approach of the High Court in dealing with the matter which we have already noticed, we further find that instead of adverting to and confining its attention to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC the High Court has (1994) 4 SCC 142; 1994 INSC 201 Criminal Appeal No.3175 of 2024 dealt with the rival contentions of the parties raised through their respective affidavits at length and on a threadbare discussion thereof passed the impugned order. The course so adopted cannot be supported; firstly, because finding regarding commission of an offence cannot be recorded on the basis of affidavit evidence and secondly, because at the stage of framing of charge the Court cannot usurp the functions of a Trial Court to delve into and decide upon the respective merits of the case.” (underline supplied).

#12. In short, while reiterating the position that in a prosecution, presumption of innocence should be in favour of the accused, it has to be said that at the stage of framing charge, even a very strong suspicion, of course, founded upon materials and presumptive opinion would enable the Court to frame charge against an accused.

#10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as aforestated, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the order dated

28.02.2026 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 19/2025 in framing of charges against the applicant.

#11. Accordingly, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh