JUDGMENT
Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This application is filed by the applicant Amar Singh with a prayer that entire criminal proceedings of S.T. No. 511 of 2005 State v. Ram Kumar and Ors. under Sections 307, 302, 504 and 506 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 Mathura and charge framed against the applicant on 28.11.2005 by the same court may be quashed.
2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant tint in lire present case the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation is not sufficient to frame the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. against the applicant, The date of birth of the applicant is 1.1.1956. He was posted in July, 1993 in the State Bank of India on the post of clerk cum cashier, presently he is posted as Senior Assistant in village Tarauli district Mathura, He is a non-violent, peace loving and law abiding citizen and is not having any criminal antecedent. The allegations made against, the applicant are hyperbolical, exaggerated and false. The first informant Dinesh is a harden criminal and history sheeter, the deceased Ramu was also a harden criminal and the witnesses Mukesh Misra is also a criminal and one of the eye witness’Gopal has filed an affidavit mentioning therein that he has been falsely named as eye witness in the F.I.R. The participation of the applicant and the role of firing upon the complainant party from a distance of about 280 feet in the dark hours of night is absolutely false because it was not possible to identify a person from such a longdistance and from such a distance it was not possible to cause any injury. The alleged occurrence has taken place on 20.5.2004 at 7.15 p.m. in the back side of Hindustan Petroleum Building where no source of light was available and in the present case no identification parade was held. According to the prosecution Dinesh, the brother of the deceased Ranu alias Rain Prasad, lodged an F.I.R. on 20.5.2004 a, about 9.15 p.m. at P.S. Kotwali Mathura stating therein that co-accused Jeetu, Ram Kumar and Prashant are goondas, on 20.5.2004 at about 7.15 p.m. the first informant Dinesh who is the elder other of Ramu went for walking in the Army Garden, his brother Vishnu, Mukesh Mishra, Gopal had also come for walking purpose. The co-accused Ramu, Jeetu and Prashant hurled abuses on the deceased and gave challenge, thereafter they caused injuries by using knife blows on the person of the deceased. The alleged occurrence was witnessesed by the first informant and other persons in the Mercury light, when they were chased, the ‘ applicant fired by gun and due to that firing, the first informant and another could not proceed further. The deceased was taken In an injured condition by the first informant and his brother Vishnu to hospital where he died.
3. It is further contended that there was over writing in the panchayatname and the name of the accused were not mentioned therein. The prosecution story was not corroborated by the postmortem report and there was no explanation of abrasion. The learned trial court has illegally famed charge against the applicant under Section 307 I.P.C. because no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out and there was no sufficient material to frame of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. and the entire proceedings against the applicants are abuse of the process and are liable to be quashed.
4. It is opposed by the learned, A.G.A. by submitting that in the present case F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The first informant and another persons are eyewitness and there was sufficient source of light. In the present case the brother of the first informant has been murdered. Thereafter the applicant has fired upon the first informant and another person with an Intention to kill them. Active role of firing is given to the applicant but luckily no one received any injury. The investigation was completed by the I.O. who came to the conclusion that the applicant and other co-accused persons have committed the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The charge sheet was submitted and on thy basis of the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, learned magistrate took cognizance. The case was committed to the court of sessions and charge was framed against the applicant on 28.11.2005. There is no illegality in the charge-dated 28.11.2005 and on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer a prima facie offence is made out against the applicant and other co-accused persons and is no ground to quash the criminal proceedings and the charge dated 28.11.2005 framed against the applicant.
5. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and after perusing the material present on record and the charge dated 28.11.2005 framed by the trial court ‘against the applicant, it appears that on the basis of allegations made against the applicant find other co-accused persons prima facie offence is made out and there is sufficient material to proceed, further. There is no illegality in the investigation as will as in framing of the charge. At the stage of charge, the only material collected by the Investigating Officer is required to be considered, no other material is required to be considered and it is not a stage of appreciation of the evidence including the probability and contradictions etc. The Stage of appreciation of evidence shall come when the evidence is adduced at the stage of trial. At this stage it is to be considered whether on the basis of the. allegation made against the accused prima facie offence is made ‘out or material collected by the Investigating Officer is sufficient to proceed further. The apex court has’ decided this controversy in a case of State of Orrisa v. Devendra Nath Pathi reported in 2005(1) J.I.C. 289(SC).
6. In view of the above discussion, there is. no illegality in the charge dated 28.11.2005 and there is no ground to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant, the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings of S.T. No. 511 of 2005 ending in the court of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Mathura and the charge dated 28.11.2005 framed by the learned Additional IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, is refused.
7. Accordingly this application is dismissed.