Allahabad High Court
Lal Bihari Maurya vs State Of Up Through Secretary Home, And ... on 20 January, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 69 Serial No.3 E-Court HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *** APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1453 of 2023 Lal Bihari Maurya .....Applicant Through :- Vishnu Pandey, v/s State Of UP Through Secretary Home, and another .....Opposite Party Through :- Ms. Arti Agarwal CORAM : HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, JUDGE ORDER 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Arti Agarwal, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Lal Bihari Maurya with the following prayers : "It is, therefore, MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED before this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and set aside the order dt. 16.8.2022 through which the Charge framed by the Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court-1, Varanasi in Session Trial No. 990/2021 (Case Crime No. 772/2017, U/S. 304 I.P.C., Police Station Chaubepur, Varanasi), as well as quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 990/2021 in Case Crime No. 772/2017, U/S. 304 I.P.C., Police Station Chaubepur, Varanasi. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Session Trial No. 990/2021 in Case Crime No. 772/2017, U/S. 304 I.P.C., Police Station Chaubepur, Varanasi, pending before the Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court-1, Varanasi, during the pendency of present application, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/or to pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 4. The facts in brief of the present case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 17.12.2017 by Rajesh Maurya, against unknown persons as Case Crime No. 772 of 2017, under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C., alleging therein that he is a resident of Chandauli. Smt. Radhika Devi the first wife of Lal Bihari Maurya is having litigations with him since the last 25 years with regard to property, pairvi of which was done by Dinesh son of late Mitthu, resident of Chandauli, due to which Lal Bihari Maurya has threatened the brother of first informant of dire consequences. The disputed land was in possession of Radhika Devi. An agreement was entered into between Lal Bihari Marya and Prabhunarayan Chauhan for getting the same vacated. On 16.12.2017 Dinesh Maurya the brother of the first informant was returning from the District Court, Varanasi, after doing pairvi in the case along with his mother-in-law Radhika Devi wife of Lal Bihari Maurya at about 4.00 P.M. and were walking near Mishrapura, Sarsauli Ghat. He was called through phone to pick them up. When he reached the bridge he found bag, spectacles and shoes of one leg of his brother at one end of bridge and when he viewed below from the bridge, he found his brother struggling in water with his face outside. His mother-in-law Radhika told him while crying that Lal Bihari Maurya was also traveling in the bus in which they were traveling. One Bolero vehicle crossed them from behind which was being driven in a negligent manner. She then saw spectacles and bag of her son-in-law and then saw him in the Ganga river. There is a belief that the aforesaid persons have committed the incident. A First Information Report was thus lodged. Inquest on the body of Dinesh was conducted on 17.12.2017, after which post mortem examination was conducted on 18.12.2017 in which the doctor opined the cause of death as 'asphyxia' as a result of drowning. There was no ante mortem injury present on the body of the deceased. A Crime Scene Reconstruction was ordered by Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi vide order dated 09.10.2018, to be done by the forensic experts. A team of Forensic Science Laboratory conducted Crime Scene Reconstruction and vide its report dated 09.1.2019 came to a conclusion that since the deceased was wearing a jacket and his both hands were inside pocket of jacket as such his jumping in water on his own appears to be quite unnatural as the height of railing of bridge was three feet. The opinion was inconclusive. The applicant was made an accused in the matter during investigation. The applicant Lal Bihari Maurya moved an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. dated 5.1.2022 before the trial court for discharge. Vide order dated 31.3.2022 the said discharge application has been rejected. An order dated 16.8.2022 has been passed by the trial court by which charge under Section 304 I.P.C. has been framed against the applicant Lal Bihari Maurya and Prabhunarayan Chauhan. Challenge has been made in this application against the same. The application for discharge dated 5.1.2022 of the applicant was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 31.3.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. It is argued that C.D.R. of the applicant does not show his presence at the place of occurrence. It is further argued that there is ambiguity in the investigation reports. He has placed before the Court the following judgements to buttress his submissions :- (1) Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another : (1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 4; (2) State of Maharashtra vs. Salman Salim Khan and another : (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 525; (3) Ram Bahadur Dhobi and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : 2011 SCC OnLine All 19; (4) Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana Rao : (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 512; (5) Brijesh Kumar and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and another, Application U/S 482 No. 7478 of 2020, decided on 07.8.2020. 6. It is argued that implication of the applicant is without any credible evidence. There are no chances of conviction and the trial would be a wastage of time and public money. It is argued that looking to the facts the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and the charge as framed against the applicant deserves to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh opposed the prayer for quashing. 8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the trial court has rejected the application for discharge of the applicant by an order in detail on merits on 31.3.2022. The challenge is to the order dated 16.8.2022 framing of charge under Section 304 I.P.C. The contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, ambiguity in the investigation reports and the C.D.R. reports cannot be the basis for quashing of charge. At the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case is to be seen. 9. In the case of V. K. Verma Vs. CBI : 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1192 an Hon?ble single Judge of the Delhi High Court has dealt in detail with the powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while dealing with an order of framing of charge and has considered in detail the law on it and has held as follows: ?37. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samadhan Baburao Khakare v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 SCC OnLine Bom 72 has highlighted the objective and importance of Charge in criminal trial in the following words: ?11. The whole purpose and object of framing charges is to enable the defence to concentrate its attention on the case that he has to meet, and if the charge is framed in such a vague manner that the necessary ingredients of the offence with which the accused is convicted is not brought out in the charge then the charge is not only defective but illegal. It is no doubt that when the accused is charged with a major offence, he can be convicted of a minor offence. It is true that what is major offence and what is minor offence is not defined. The gravity of offence must depend upon the severity of the punishment that can be inflicted, but the major and the minor offences must be cognate offences which have the main ingredients in common, and a man charged with one offence which is entirely of a different nature from the offence which is proved to have been committed by him, cannot in the absence of a proper charge be convicted of that offence, merely on the ground that the facts proved constitute a minor offence. For example, a man charged with an offence of murder cannot be convicted for forgery or misappropriation of funds, or such offences which do not constitute offences against person, the reason being that the accused had no opportunity in such a case to make defence, which may have been open to him, if he had been charged with the offence for which he is to be convicted.? 38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly analyzed its previous decisions with respect to framing of charge in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 and has laid down the following test for framing of charges: ?30. In Antulay case [R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1986) 2 SCC 716 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 256] Bhagwati, C.J., opined, after noting the difference in the language of the three pairs of sections, that despite the difference there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of ?prima facie? case has to be applied. According to Shri Jethmalani, a prima facie case can be said to have been made out when the evidence, unless rebutted, would make the accused liable to conviction. In our view, a better and clearer statement of law would be that if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, a court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him exists, and so, frame a charge against him for committing that offence. 31. Let us note the meaning of the word ?presume?. In Black's Law Dictionary it has been defined to mean ?to believe or accept upon probable evidence?. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary it has been mentioned that in law ?presume? means ?to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming?, Stroud's Legal Dictionary has quoted in this context a certain judgment according to which ?A presumption is a probable consequence drawn from facts (either certain, or proved by direct testimony) as to the truth of a fact alleged.? In Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar the same quotation finds place at p. 1007 of 1987 Edn. 32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.? 39. Thus, the court concerned with the framing of charges has to merely see whether the commission of offense can be a possibility from the evidence on record or not. 40. It is also required to be noted that the charge does not render a conclusive finding with respect to guilt or innocence of the accused. The charge is merely an indication to the accused about the offense for which he is being tried for. In this regard, it is essential to take note of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esher Singh v. State of A.P., (2004) 11 SCC 585, where the Hon'ble Court observed: ?20. Section 2(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short ?the Code?) defines ?charge? as follows: ?2. (b) ?charge? includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one;? The Code does not define what a charge is. It is the precise formulation of the specific accusation made against a person who is entitled to know its nature at the earliest stage. A charge is not an accusation made or information given in the abstract, but an accusation made against a person in respect of an act committed or omitted in violation of penal law forbidding or commanding it. In other words, it is an accusation made against a person in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him. A charge is formulated after inquiry as distinguished from the popular meaning of the word as implying inculpation of a person for an alleged offence as used in Section 224 IPC.? 41. Additionally, at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for ?presuming? that the accused had committed the offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 as under: ?25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for ?presuming? that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.? 42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Main Pal v. State of Haryana, (2010) 10 SCC 130 observed as follows: ?17. (i) The object of framing a charge is to enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for and of the essential facts that he has to meet. The charge must also contain the particulars of date, time, place and person against whom the offence was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.? 43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumari v. State of J&K, (2011) 9 SCC 234 has comprehensively dealt with the question and purpose of framing of charges as under: ?18. The object of the charge is to give the accused notice of the matter he is charged with and does not touch jurisdiction. If, therefore, the necessary information is conveyed to him in other ways and there is no prejudice, the framing of the charge is not invalidated. The essential part of this part of law is not any technical formula of words but the reality, whether the matter was explained to the accused and whether he understood what he was being tried for. Sections 34, 114 and 149 IPC provide for criminal liability viewed from different angles as regards actual participants, accessories and men actuated by a common object or a common intention; and as explained by a five-Judge Constitution Bench of this Court in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. [AIR 1956 SC 116 : 1956 Cri LJ 291 : (1955) 2 SCR 1140] SCR at p. 1189, the charge is a rolled-up one involving the direct liability and the constructive liability without specifying who are directly liable and who are sought to be made constructively liable.? 44. Therefore, it is clear that the framing of charge is a manifestation of the principle of Fair Trial, by giving sufficient notice along with all particulars to the accused being charged so as to enable him to prepare his defence. 45. Recently, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 314, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evaluation of evidence on merits is not permissible at the stage of considering the application for discharge. At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. The Bench held as under: ?23. In the case of P. Vijayan (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. What is required to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application has been considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C., if not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.? 46. Thus, the position of law that emerges is that at the stage of discharge/framing of charge, the Judge is merely required to shift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, or in other words, whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. 47. Now, having analysed the object as well as the test for framing of charges, it is pertinent to refer to the scope of revision as exercisable by this Court in respect to an Order on Charge. 48. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elucidated on the revisional power of the Court under Section 397: ?12. Section 397 of the Code 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. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under CrPC.? 49. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case has also enunciated a set of principles which the High Courts must keep in mind while exercising their jurisdiction under the provision: ?27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: *** 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. *** 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. *** 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.? ***************** 55. In the instant case, the Petitioner has inter alia also invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court vested under Section 482 of the Code. Therefore, it is appropriate to refer to the said provision and the extent of powers that are exercisable under the same. 56. The provision of Section 482 of the Code reads as under: ?482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.? 57. It is a well-established principle of law that the High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae - to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The bare language of the provision unambiguously states that the inherent powers of the High Court are meant to be exercised: (i) to give effect to any order under the Code; or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court; or (iii) to secure the ends of justice. 58. The principle embodied in this Section is based upon the maxim : Quando lex alquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id quo res ipsaesse non potest i.e., when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The Section does not confer any new power, rather it only declares that the High Court possesses inherent powers for the purposes specified in the Section. The use of extraordinary powers is required to be reserved only for extraordinary cases, where the judicial discretion is warranted as per the facts of the case. 59. The aforementioned provision has been referred to, analysed and interpreted in a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, few of which are referred to in the following paragraphs. 60. A seven-judge Bench in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 laid down the principles for exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code in a case where the Court was convinced that such exercise was necessary in order to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: ?21. ? In appropriate cases, inherent power of the High Court, under Section 482 can be invoked to make such orders, as may be necessary, to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. The power is wide and, if judiciously and consciously exercised, can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary on account of delay in proceedings or for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings. In appropriate cases, the High Courts have exercised their jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law was clearly made out. Such power can certainly be exercised on a case being made out of breach of fundamental right conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court (vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it was clear that even apart from Article 21, the courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.? 61. In the case of Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 9.2 In the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Supra) after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra), it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Arvind Khanna (Supra), Managipet (Supra) and in the case of XYZ (Supra), referred to hereinabove. 62. In Jitul Jentilal Kotecha v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1045, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held that: ?27. It is trite law that the High Court must exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 sparingly and with circumspection. In the decision in Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi, this Court has held that, ?[t]he inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice.? In Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, this Court in another context, while holding that the High Court cannot exercise its inherent powers to review its earlier decision in view of Section 362 of the CrPC, observed that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked to sidestep statutory provisions. This Court held: ?5. ? Section 482 enables the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The inherent powers, however, as much are controlled by principle and precedent as are its express powers by statute. If a matter is covered by an express letter of law, the court cannot give a go-by to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction.? XXX 31. Recently, in Mahendra KC v. State of Karnataka, this Court has reiterated the well settled test to be applied by the High Court for exercise of its powers under Section 482 for quashing an FIR: ?16? the test to be applied is whether the allegations in the complaint as they stand, without adding or detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations nor for that matter can it proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of trial.? 63. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of State of Orissa v. Pratima Mohanty, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222 on 11 December 2021, has comprehensively dealt with the powers exercisable and extent of the jurisdiction of the High Court while deciding a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: ?6. As held by this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent an abuse of process of any court and/or otherwise to secure the ends of justice? 6.2 ? At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducing the mini-trial. As held by this Court the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.? 64. In Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: ?15. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and also to secure the ends of justice. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis that inherent powers should be exercised in a given and deserving case where the Court is satisfied that exercise of such power would either prevent abuse of such power or such exercise would result in securing the ends of justice?? 65. The position of law that is well-settled, in light of the aforementioned judgments, is that the jurisdiction under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of the rare cases. It is also settled that although the test at the time of framing of charges is not that of the satisfaction of possibility and probability of accused having committed the offence and not of the proof of his culpability beyond reasonable doubt, yet while framing the charge some material must still be available so as to appeal to the judicial conscience on which a prima facie case is established against the accused. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 66. From the aforesaid analysis, it is clear that at the stage of framing of charge, the Ld. Judge is merely required to overview the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, or in other words, whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. It is also settled that at the time of framing of charges there is requirement of satisfaction only regarding the probability of the accused having committed the offence and not of the proof of his culpability beyond reasonable doubt, yet while framing the charge some material must still be available so as to appeal to the judicial conscience on which a prima facie case is established against the accused. ******************* 68. Further, as per the settled position of law the jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of the rare cases, only to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, there is no such abuse of process or that the ends of justice warrant the exercise of the said jurisdiction, therefore there is no cogent reason warranting the exercise of the jurisdiction. 69. The beauty of procedural law lies in the stages and remedies available during the course of a criminal proceeding. The procedure ought to be followed and framing of charge is an important step in that process where the trial court peruses the record for want of a prima facie probability of the accused having committed the offence as alleged. Framing of charge does not mean that the accused is guilty, it only implies the accused may be guilty. The minute scrutiny of evidence is a matter of trial.? 10. Looking to the facts of the case, the prima facie allegation against the applicant and the law as stated above, no case for interference is made out. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus dismissed. 11. The observations made herein shall have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case at any stage during the trial or any other proceedings before any other Court and are only confined to the decision of the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. (Samit Gopal) Judge Allahabad 20.01.2023 Naresh Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : No