JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners seek to quash order dated May 10, 1999 of the learned Special Court (Fake Currency) Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the charges u/ss. 366, 376/511 and u/ss. 366, 279, 337 and 338 have been respectively framed against the accused petitioners. 2. The petitioners earlier instituted S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 670/97 and this Court while dismissing the said petition on October 16, 1997 observed as under: "The contentions raised in this petition can very well be raised before the Court Sessions as and when the case is committed to it. I am sure, before framing the charge against the accused petitioner for the offence u/s. 376/511 IPC, Sessions Court will definitely take into consideration the contentions raised by the accused, that the husband of the prosecutrix had not stated any word in his F.I.R. that a rape was committed on his wife, not only that the prosecutrix herself has not stated in the statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.RC. as well as u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate that a rape was committed." 3. The only contention of Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial court has proceeded in the matter in an arbitrary way and mechanically framed the charges ignoring the directions issued by this court. During the course of arguments, I have been taken through the material on record. Reliance was placed on State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Others ( AIR 1977 SC 1489 ). 4. On the other hand, Shri Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order and canvassed that there was no illegality in the said order. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record. 6. A look at the record demonstrates that the FIR was lodged by Chiranjilal Saini on November 16, 1996 stating therein that in his absence Nenuram Meena and one other person came to his house in a Jeep and forcibly abducted his wife when he was coming to his house from betel shop, he found his injured wife, who told him that she was taken in a Jeep, which was collided with a tree and on account of that accident she sustained injuries. The statement of Smt. Chandra Kanta w/o Chiranjilal was recorded by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) Cum-Judicial Magistrate, No. 10, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 19.3.97. The statement of Smt. Chandra Kanta w/o Chiranjilal was recorded by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) Cum-Judicial Magistrate, No. 10, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 19.3.97. In her statement Smt. Chandra Kanta averred that or 15.11.96 at 10.00 P.M. Nenuram and Ram Prasad came to her house in Jeep No. RJ 14 4M 5714 and asked about her husband, she informed them that her husband had gone to meet one Kalyan Thekedar and she herself accompanied them in that Jeep to show the address of Kalyan First they had gone to betel shop, thereafter while they were going to Kalyan Thekedar the Jeep was collided with a tree where she sustained injuries on the fingers of her right hand. The Jeep was rashly and negligently driven by Ram Prasad. Smt. Chandra Kanta also stated that the police also recorded her statement twice. 7. A close scrutiny of FIR and statement of Chandra Kanta goes to show that no allegation of attempt to commit rape has been levelled against the petitioners. Even she has not stated that she was forcibly abducted by the accused-petitioners. Section 227 of the Cr.RC. mandates that "if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing submissions of the accused and prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing". 8. The learned trial court though recorded the reasons for framing the charges but in my opinion, the order is not justified by the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no material on record on the basis of which the trial court was justified in framing charges u/s. 366, 376/511 & 354 IPC. 9. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (supra) propounded that "the order framing a charge affects a person's liberty substantially and therefore it is the duty of the court to consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of the charges, it cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution that the accused be asked to face a trial. It was further propounded by their Lordships that for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the court possesses wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on record, if un-rebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible." 10. In view of the statement of Smt. Chandra Kanta recorded u/s. 164 Cr.RC., charges u/ss. 279, 337 & 338 IPC can be framed against accused-petitioner Ram Prasad for his act of rashly and negligently driving the vehicle. I am satisfied from the material on record that the learned court below while framing the charges u/ss. 366, 376/511 and 354 IPC has not properly considered the record of the case. In the light of the statement of Smt. Chandra Kanta recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C., there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused-petitioners u/s. 366, 376/511 and 354 IPC. To this extent the impugned order suffers from illegality. 11. I, therefore, partly allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to framing of charges u/ss. 366, 376/511 and 354 IPC. Accused-petitioner Nenuram and Ram Prasad stand discharged from the charges u/ss. 366, 376/511 and 354 IPC. in so far as the order of the court below in respect of framing of charges u/ss. 279, 337 & 338 IPC against accused-Ram Prasad is concerned; it stands confirmed. 12. The net result of the above discussion is that accused-petitioner Ram Prasad and Nenu Ram stand discharged from the charges u/ss. 366, 376/511 and 354 IPC. Accused Ram Prasad is directed to appear before the learned court below on September 27, 1999. The record of the case be sent back forthwith. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.Revision Disposed of Accordingly. *******