Ghanshyam Prasad, J.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 7.8.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2004 thereby and thereunder the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. by opposite party has been allowed and they have been discharged.
3. It appears from the record that originally on the basis of the complaint-cum-fardbeyan filed by the petitioner. Udwantnagar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2001 was registered against the opposite parties. However, after investigation, final report was submitted. Before submission of the final report. a protest petition was filed by the petitioner. The same was treated as complaint case and after enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., cognizance under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. was taken against all the petitioner. Later on, the case was committed to the court of sessions and ultimately, it came before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial.
4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the court below has meticulously examined the material available on the record like trial and has refused to frame charge against the opposite parties. The scope of Sections 227/228 I.P.C. is only to see the prima facie material and not the sufficiency of evidence for conviction of the accused persons. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties supported the order in question and submitted that there was delay in filing the case and also there was no postmortem report and accordingly, the court below has rightly refused to frame charge against the opposite parties.
5. From reading of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. together it would be clear that at the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecution purposes to adduce are not to be meticulously examined or evaluated. Only fact which is permissible to been seen at this stage is prima facie material and not sufficiency of evidence for the purpose of conviction.
6. It appears from the impugned order that the court below has meticulously examined the material available on the record which is not permissible under the law. The paragraph-8 of the impugned order also clearly goes to show that there was sufficient material or the record to frame charges against the accused persons. The court itself has found material on the point of ‘last seen’ as well as on the point of motive for the crime.
7. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The order in question is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the court below to reconsider the materials available on the record within the parameter of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. and pass fresh order on point of charge.