Judgment RAJENDRA SAXENA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. Perused the challan papers and other relevant record. ( 2 ) STATED in succinct the relevant acts are that in the night intervening 21st and 22nd May, 1993, Ditiya Meena alongwith seven others were sleeping in the field near Chainkund Bawdi situated near the outskirts of the town of Pratapgarh. All those persons belonged to Meena community and they had come to Pratapgarh for working as labourers in the nearby kilns. It is alleged that in the night, the police jeep came there from which two police constables, who were in police dress, alighted there of from. One of whom was having a lathi, and they started beating the aforementioned persons. It was the Amavasya night. Ditiya and his companions out of fear, ran away. Thereafter, in the morning, Ditiya and his companions returned to the said field and found that their two family members namely Smt. Surta and a boy Limba were missing. They searched about them and found their dead bodies in the nearby well. Ditiya reported the matter to the police, whereupon initially, the proceedings under section 174 Cr. P. C were conducted. Since the dead bodies had ante mortem injuries, Crime No. 1/94 was registered against two police constables at police station, Pratapgarh for the offence under section 304-A IPC. Later-on, the investigation was handed-over to the Addi. S. P. , CID, who after completion of the investigation, found that petitioner Harlal, CI, who was the then SHO, Police Station, Pratapgarh, alongwith Mustaq, driver, and Umrao, Constable, had left the Police Station at about 3 A. M. for patroling duty and returned on the same day at about 5 AM. It also transpired from the investigation that Mustaq and Umrao had inflicted injuries to Ditiya and his companions including the deceased persons. After investigation, a challan was submitted in the court of learned Judi. Magistrate, Pratapgarh against the petitioner and co-accused Mustaq and Umrao under sections 304 and 323 read with 34 IPC, who committed the case to the learned Special Judge, S. C. and S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases cum Addi. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. The learned trial Judge after hearing the accused persons and the learned APP and perusing the challan papers ordered for framing the charge against the petitioner and co-accused persons Umarao and Mustaq under sections 304 and 323 read with 34 IPC. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. The learned trial Judge after hearing the accused persons and the learned APP and perusing the challan papers ordered for framing the charge against the petitioner and co-accused persons Umarao and Mustaq under sections 304 and 323 read with 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner Harial has filed this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) THE contention of Mr. Ramgopal Badliwala is that there is not a fringe of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner; that no test identification parade was got conducted and that even after improvement of the prosecution case in the subsequent investigation, prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order be quashed and further proceedings against the petitioner be dropped because those amount to abuse of the process of the court. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that from the report Rojnamcha maintained at the Police Station, Pratapgarh, it stands fairly established that petitioner Harlal had also gone out. in the police jeep alongwith co-accused persons Umrao and Mustaq for patroling duties and that some of the witnesses in their subsequent statements recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C have stated that two-three police personnels had come at the time of the incident and inflicted injuries. Thus, he has supported the impugned order. ( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. In this case, the FIR was lodged by Ditiya Meena on 22. 5. 93 at 6. 45 a. m. , wherein it was specifically mentioned that only two constables, who were in the police uniform, had come to the field and inflicted injuries by lathies and that thereupon his companions including the deceased persons, had run away and that in morning, the dead bodies of Smt. Surta and Limba were found floating in the nearby well. During the initial investigation also, Ditiya, Velji, Kalu, Smt. Keshar, Smt. Kanku, Smt. Kanta, Govardhan Rawat and other witnesses had specifically stated only two police constables who had alighted from the jeep, came in the field and inflicted lathi blows to them and that thereupon eight labourers, belonging to Meena community, had fled away. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was handed-over to the Addi. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was handed-over to the Addi. S. P. , C. I. D. , who recorded the supplementary statements of Ditiya and his companions and also recorded the statements of other witnesses. It may be mentioned here that on 12. 7. 93, Smt. Kamla separately filed a criminal complaint in the court of learned ACJM, Pratapgarh against police constables Mustaq and Umrao only under sections 509, 323, 354, 376/511 IPC read with Section 3 (2) (v), S. C. and S. T. (prevention of Atrocities) Act regarding the same incident, wherein she alleged that aforesaid two accused persons, who were under intoxication, came to the field where she alongwith her family members were sleeping; that they inflicted lathi blows; that thereupon male persons fled away and thereafter they tried to commit rape with her and also to outrage the modesty of female members, sleeping there. In that criminal complaint also, it was not alleged that petitioner Harlal had come alongwith, those accused persons or had inflicted any injury. In their supplementary statements recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C, Ditiya, Velji, Smt. Keshar, Smt. Kanku, Smt. Kamla, Smt. Kanta, Govardhan and other witnesses have neither named the petitioner nor stated that he had also accompanied these two police constables to the field, where they were sleeping. They have also admitted that it was a dark night. They have also not given any details of the features of the petitioner. These witnesses have simply stated that two-three police personnels had come there and inflicted injuries by lathies. It is also an admitted fact that no test identification parade in respect of the petitioner was got conducted by the Investigating Officer. Simply because the petitioner Harial had gone out for patroling duty at 3 a. m. on 22. 5. 93, as has been stated by Govind Singh, ASI, and Ishwar Singh, Constable, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner had also, gone to the field, where Ditiya and his companions were sleeping and inflicted injuries to them or that he had a common intention alongwith co-accused persons Umrao and Mushtaq to commit an offence under sections 304 and 323 read with 34 IPC. Therefore, even if all the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is taken to be true on its face value, still then there do not exist valid and reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under sections 304 and 323 read with 34 IPC. Therefore, the impugned order dt. 29. 7. 94, qua the petitioner Harlal is against the record and the charge frame against the petitioner is groundless, which cannot be sustained. The impugned order amounts to abuse of the process of the court, which deserves to be quashed. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, this petition is allowed and the order dated 29. 7. 94 passed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, qua the petitioner Harlal as also the charge framed against him for the offences under sections 304 and 323 read with 34 IPC is hereby quashed and the petitioner is discharged of the said offences. Petition allowed. .