1. Major A.K. Rohanker, Officer Commanding, 56 Road Construction Company (GREF) filed a Written Report with the Station House Officer, Police Station, Bandipora Qammu & Kashmir) on December 4,2008 informing that work on Stone Crusher of GREF was going on at Km 12 Road and Stone Collection was being done near Kms 18 and 19 when one light vehicle and one Platform Truck (Open Chassis) of Forest Department reached there with Abdul Rashid Lone and Abdul Rahim Dar, Ranger Officers, Wali Mohd. Forester and eight Forest Guards. They snatched tools from the labourers and Ranger Officer, Abdul Rashid Lone & Abdul Rahim Dar started kicking Mazdoor Ghulam Ahmed Ganai, as a result whereof, he fell on the ground. 2. Wali Mohd. Forester, mercilessly beat Ghulam Ahmad Ganai and kicked him at the chest. 3. Rafiq Ahmed and his son Babu Khan rescued Ghulam Ahmed from Wali Mohd. Forester's beating whereafter Wali Mohd and Forest Guard started beating another Mazdoor Basheer Khan with a Crowbar. 4. Mabil Khan, Syed Rehman, Babu Khan, Quasim Khan, Rafiq Khan, Ahmad Dar, Khanbali Khan, Gulzar Ganai, Ashiq Tantray, Ahmad Dar, Nissar Khan, Shabir Khan, Gulzar Ahmad Ganai and Nawab Khan were thereafter taken forcibly into a vehicle towards Tragbal. Mazdoor Ghulam Ahmed Ganai expired because of the beating administered to him by Forest Girds, specially Wali Mohd. 5. FIR No. 221/08 was registered at Police Station, Bandipora under Section 148,149,302/109 RFC on the above report. 6. On the basis of investigation carried out in the case, the Investigating Officer found a case under Section 304 Part IIRPC made out against the accused as there was no evidence justifying their involvement for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 RPC. 7. The Final Police Report filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was committed to the Court of Sessions. 8. Finding, prima facie, the accused involved in the Commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II RPC, the learned Sessions Judge, Bandipora, directed their trial on the above charge. 9. The accused have approached this Court seeking quashing of their Charge and Order dated 17.03.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bandipora in this respect. 10. None had appeared for the State when the case was taken up for consideration. 11. Considered the submissions of the petitioner's learned counsel and perused the trial Court records. 12. 9. The accused have approached this Court seeking quashing of their Charge and Order dated 17.03.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bandipora in this respect. 10. None had appeared for the State when the case was taken up for consideration. 11. Considered the submissions of the petitioner's learned counsel and perused the trial Court records. 12. Perusal of the trial Court records reveals that barring the statement of the Complainant, who was not eye witness to the occurrence, all other witnesses, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 and 164-A Cr. P.C, indicated that the deceased had died as a result of the injury which he received while running away from the place of work on noticing the Forest Officials on spot and as a result of the stampede when the labourers employed by GREF started running helter-skelter on seeing the functionaries of the Forest Department. 13. The Post-mortem Report of Ghulam Ahmed Ganai reveals no external injury on his person and the probable cause of death is indicated as Cardiac Temponade Secondary to Trauma Chest (haemopericardium which leads to cardio respiratory failure). 14. The Investigating Officer sought clarifications from the Medical Officer, who uranswer thereto, reported that the injuries found on the Post-mortem examination of the deceased could be caused because of fall from height on left side of chest or some blunt object like stone or it could be trauma caused during stampede. 15. While examining the Final Police Report and the documents submitted therewith to consider as to which of the courses, i.e., one contemplated by Section 268 or the other by Section 269 Cr. P.C, should be followed, the Sessions Court, is required to examine as to whether there was any ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence which was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions or an offence which may require trial by a Magistrate, or there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 16. P.C, should be followed, the Sessions Court, is required to examine as to whether there was any ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence which was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions or an offence which may require trial by a Magistrate, or there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 16. To come to the conclusion that there was ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence, the Court is required to take the prosecution evidence on its face value without entering into the arena of appreciation of evidence, And, if on such consideration, the evidence and the material collected during investigation, indicated even strong suspicion that the accused had committed the offence, the Court may follow the course indicated in Section 269 Cr. P.C and accordingly Charge the accused for such offence which the evidence and material produced may indicate to have been committed. If, however, the Court finds no evidence on records to connect the accused with the commission of offence, he is required to hold the charge groundless thereby discharging the accused following the course contemplated by Section 268 Cr. P.C. 17. Although the learned Sessions Judge has noted in his Order the parameters which a court is required to consider while considering the case for Charge/Discharge of the accused, yet he has erred in not referring to the findings in the Final Police Report, which were supported by all the eye witnesses to the occurrence, in terms whereof, it was indicated that the deceased had received injuries while running away from his place of work when he slipped and fell down injuring his chest, as a work whereof, he died in the Hospital. 18. Therefore, there being absolutely no evidence to support the Complainant's version, who himself was not stated eye witness to the occurrence, on records, the accused could not be proceeded against under Section 269 Cr. P,C, in that, no case of suspicion, muchless strong suspicion can be said to have been made out against the accused. 19. For all what has been said above, the learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, found to have erred in framing Charge against the accused-petitioners, when there was no evidence or material against them on records, which cannot, therefore, be sustained. 20. 19. For all what has been said above, the learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, found to have erred in framing Charge against the accused-petitioners, when there was no evidence or material against them on records, which cannot, therefore, be sustained. 20. The continuance of proceedings in the Police Challan against the petitioners, on the basis of the evidence and material collected by the Investigating Police Officer, would result in abuse of the process of the Court. 21. The Criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are, therefore, required to be quashed. 22. This Petition, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in File No. 823/Sessions. 23. The petitioners are, accordingly, discharged. 24. The discharge of the petitioners shall not, however, debar re-investigation of the case, if, it was found by the concerned Authorities that the Police had not properly investigated the case, as is indicated in the learned Public Prosecutor's Application filed before the Learned Sessions Judge, though after the petitioners were Charge. 25. Before parting, it needs to be observed that a Public Prosecutor enjoys a very important position in Criminal Justice Dispensation System and is required to see that those who were guilty do not go unpunished at the same time ensuring that innocent were not unnecessarily prosecuted and punished. 26. In case the learned Public Prosecutor and satisfied that the Investigating Police Officer had not properly investigated the case and there was material with him which would warrant further investigation of the case, he/on his own, should have taken requisite steps/measures to see that the case was re-investigated. 27. He is, therefore, left free to take such steps, as are warrant under law in the circumstances of the case.