B.R. Arora, J.
1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated March 27,1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners.
2. Smt. Suchintara W/o Shri Dharamveer Gehlot lodged a First Informatin Report at the Police Station, Surajpole, Udaipur on April 29, 1984. It was alleged in that report that she and her servant Shyam were sitting in her house when some boys, including the younger son of the landlord and one Vijay Shreemali came there and gave beatings to his son Pankaj and threw something in his eyes and forcibly took him on the motor-cycle. On the basis of this information, a case under Sections 363 and 365 IPC was registered. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against Brij Mohan and Naresh Chandra alias Naresh Kumar under Sections 363, 365, 325, 323/34 I.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, who, by his order dated July 3, 1984, took cognizance against Brij Mohan and Naresh Kumar for the offences under Sections 363, 365, 325 and 323/34 I.P.C. and issued process. The petitioners, thereafter, appeared before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who, by his order dated September 25,1986, framed the charges under Sections 365, 342, 325 and 323/34, I.P.C. Dissatisfied with the order, framing the charges, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by his order dated March 27, 1990, dismissed the revision-petition filed by the petitioners as being not maintainable. It is against this order that the petitioners have preferred this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that from the bare reading of the statements on the record and the other evidence collected by the prosecution, no case under Sections 363, 365, 342, 325 or 323/34 I.P.C. is made-out against the petitioners and the learned lower Court has committed an error in framing the charges against the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court, framing the charges against the petitioners. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties.
5. At the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to adduce, are not to be meticulously or critically examined. At this stage, it has to seen whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution has to adduce, makes out a case for conviction. If this is so, then the charges can be framed. But if the unrebutted evidence itself does not make-out a case that the accused have committed an offence then the charges should not be framed. At this stage, the Court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view of find-out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and for this purpose, the Court has to evaluate the evidence. I have gone-through the record and the evidence collected by the investigating agency during the investigation. A reading of the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, does not make-out any case qua these two petitioners are concerned. Smt. Suchintara, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has only stated that she, her son Pankaj and servant Chhotu were sitting at the house; at about 7.30 p.m., Brij Mohan (younger son of the landlord) and Naresh Kumar came there, called Pankaj out of the room and asked him to come-down as they to do some confidential talks with him and when Pankaj came down-stairs alongwith Laxmi Lal, they accompanied the accused-petitioners and reached near the outer gate. Somebody threw something in the eyes of Pankaj and two boys forcibly took Pankaj on a motor-cycle and forcibly took him with them though Pankaj did not want to go with them. Two boys followed them on a scooter. They were five to ten boys, to whom he did not know. It is pertinent to note here that in this statement, she did not assign any part regarding abduction of Pankaj to any of the petitioners. The only part that has been assigned to these persons is that they called Pankaj and took him with them. Similar are the statements of Kailash Sharma, Vijay Sharma, Pankaj Malhotra, Sanjay, Sunil and Laxmi Lal Sharma and even Pankaj, who was said to be abducted, does not assign any part to these two accused petitioners. A careful reading of the evidence of all these witnesses clearly show that the ingredients of the offences, for which the accused-petitioners have been charged, are wanting. In the present case, there is no material on record, on the basis of which any Court can convict the accused-petitioners even on this unrebutted evidence for the offences with which they have been charged. In this view of the matter, allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court and the ends of justice require that the charges framed and the proceedings pending against the accused petitioners should be quashed.
6. In the result, I allow this miscellaneous petition, quash the charges framed, as well as the proceedings pending, against the accused-petitioners in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur, and discharge the accused-petitioners of charges leveled against them.