JUDGMENT 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this application filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging the order passed by J.M.F.C., (Court No.9), Amravati, on 28.4.2014 refusing to discharge them from Reg. Criminal Case No. 2 of 2006, arising out of Crime No. 108/05, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against them and also the order of Sessions Judge passed on 31.10.2014 in Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2014, thereby confirming the order of refusal of discharge of the applicants passed by the learned J.M.F.C. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under: (a) Vaishali daughter of applicant no. 1 got married with one Pravin Charjan r/o Amravati, in the year 1990. Viashali died of an unnatural death in her matrimonial home on 12.10.2005. There used to be frequent quarrels between the husband and wife and it appears that demand of money was the bone of contention between the spouses. (b) On learning about the unnatural death of his daughter, applicant no. 1 had been to Amravati to attend the funeral. Thereafter on 13.10.2005 the applicant no. 1 lodged a complaint against Pravin, the husband of Vaishali, and in-laws of Vaishali with police station Nandgaonpeth, Amravati, alleging that his daughter was killed by her husband and her in-laws. Offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code together with connected offences was registered against Pravin and in-laws of Vaishali vide Crime No. 107/05. (c) About two days later, i.e. on 15.10.2015, Pradip, who was arraigned as accused no. 5 in the F.I.R. lodged by applicant no. 1 against Pravain & others, lodged a report with police station Nandgaonpeth that around midnight of 14.10.2015, applicants 1 and 2 entered the house belonging to the family of Charjans and without consent or lawful authority being obtained from the legal guardian, i.e. husband of deceased Vaishali, kidnapped minor child Adhiraj of Pravin and Vaishali and also stole two sarees and cash amount of Rs. two lacs kept in the almirah in the bed room of Pravin and Vaishali. (d) Incidently, name of applicant no. 3 was not mentioned in the F.I.R. nor was there any allegation whatsoever made therein against applicant no. 3, who is the son-in-law of applicant no. 1. two lacs kept in the almirah in the bed room of Pravin and Vaishali. (d) Incidently, name of applicant no. 3 was not mentioned in the F.I.R. nor was there any allegation whatsoever made therein against applicant no. 3, who is the son-in-law of applicant no. 1. Nandgaonpeth police registered offences punishable under Section 380 and 363 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against applicants 1 and 2 vide Crime No. 108/05. Later on, both the applicants were arrested and subsequently even applicant no. 3 came to be arrested. They were released on bail in due course of time. Investigation was made and charge-sheet bearing No. 94/05 was filed on 31.12.2005 before the Court of J.M.F.C. Amravati. (e) Meanwhile, investigation in Crime No. 107/05 came to be transferred to C.I.D. Amravati as it was found by the superior officers that the Investigating Officer was not honest in performance of his duty and was suspected to be taking sides with accused persons in Crime No. 107/05. Thereafter, further investigation was carried out by C.I.D. Amravati and as sufficient material was found against the accused persons named in the F.I.R., i.e. Pravin (accused no.1), Vasantrao (accused no. 2), Sindhubai (accused no. 3), Gayabai (accused no.4), Pradeep (accused no.5), Madhulika (accused no.6) and Vandana (accused no.7), charge-sheet bearing No. 32/07, came to be filed on 16.6.2007 before the Court of J.M.F.C. Amravati. (f) During the course of investigation of Crime No. 107/05, C.I.D. had also found certain objectionable acts committed by the Investigating Officers, namely one Mufizmiyan B. Deshmukh, the then P.I. of Nandgaonpeth police station and one Kashinath Y. Apar, the then P.S.I. of Nandgaonpeth police station, which were not only in the nature of dereliction of their duty but also amounted to disobedience and intentionally framing of accused in Crime No. 108/05. It is also alleged that said two officers were involved in preparation of incorrect and false records in Crime No. 107/05. Therefore, these two accused persons who had initially investigated Crime No. 107/05 were also made accused no. 8 and 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 217 and 218 of Indian Penal Code. Then, the trial of criminal case arising out of Crime No. 107/05 proceeded quite fast. Trial of criminal case arising out of Crime No. 108/05 could not gather speed. 8 and 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 217 and 218 of Indian Penal Code. Then, the trial of criminal case arising out of Crime No. 107/05 proceeded quite fast. Trial of criminal case arising out of Crime No. 108/05 could not gather speed. The trial of case arising out of Crime No. 107/05 ultimately ended in conviction of accused no. 1 Praveen for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and also in conviction of accused no. 8 M.B. Deshmukh and accused no. 9 Kashinath for the offences punishable under Sections 217 and 218 of Indian Penal Code on 23.1.2014. Rest of the accused persons were acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. (g) As the charge had remained to be framed in the trial arising from Crime No. 108/05, the applicants filed an application seeking their discharge from the case. The application, however, was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 28.4.2014. A criminal revision filed against the said rejection of discharge application by the Magistrate also came to be dismissed on 31.10.2014 by Sessions Court, Amravati. Being aggrieved by these orders, the applicants are before this Court in the present criminal application. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the trial of the applicants in the criminal case arising out of Crime No. 108/05 is a gross abuse of process of law as the allegations made against them, ex facie, show that they are absurd and so improbable that no prudent man would believe them to be correct and that the complaint dated 15.10.2005 filed by Pradeep was filed in order to take a revenge from the applicants for filing of a complaint dated 13.10.2005 by applicant no. 1 against Praveen and other persons. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that there is ample material collected by C.I.D. Amravati during the course of investigation in Crime No. 107/05 which shows that there was absolutely no evidence to even prima facie support the allegations made by Pradeep in Crime No. 108/05 against these applicants. He further submits that the charge-sheet filed by C.I.D. Amravati in Crime No. 107/05 is sufficient to reach this conclusion. He also submits that the statement of Adhiraj s/o Praveen and Vaishali has been recorded by C.I.D. on 08.08.2006, when he was about 11 years old. He further submits that the charge-sheet filed by C.I.D. Amravati in Crime No. 107/05 is sufficient to reach this conclusion. He also submits that the statement of Adhiraj s/o Praveen and Vaishali has been recorded by C.I.D. on 08.08.2006, when he was about 11 years old. He further submits that as the investigation was being carried out by police officers who were discharging their duties with honesty, it won the confidence of Adhiraj and, therefore, he stated in the said statement that on his insistence and with the permission of his father Pravin that applicant no. 1 took him to Amravati. He also submits that it is an admitted fact that no property allegedly stolen had been recovered in the present crime and except for the statement of complaint Pradeep, who was accused no. 5 in Crime No. 107/05, there is no other evidence to substantiate the allegations. He further submits that even in the answers given by accused no. 1, 2 and 3 to the questions put to them while recording their statements under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the trial pertaining to Crime No. 107/05, all the three accused, namely Praveen, Vasantrao and Pradeep, have stated that Adhiraj was taken away by applicant no. 1 with the consent of Praveen. He further submits that although major portion of the material on which the applicants are relying upon is from the record of the Sessions case arising from Crime No. 107/05, that material is a part of public record and, therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be lawful for this Court to refer to that material for reaching the appropriate conclusion in the matter. 5. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that this is a fit case for discharge of the accused and to make interference to prevent gross abuse of process of law. In support, he has placed reliance on the cases of (i) State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , (ii) Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar & ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 103 and (iii) Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley & ors. reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351 . 6. In support, he has placed reliance on the cases of (i) State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , (ii) Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar & ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 103 and (iii) Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley & ors. reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351 . 6. Learned APP, opposing the application, submits that whatever has been argued on behalf of the applicants is by way of defence of the applicants and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to consider the defence of the applicants at this stage. He submits that it is well settled law that while making adjudication upon discharge application or even while considering quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Court cannot enter into merits of the case. He, therefore, submits that all the said submissions of applicants should be left to be considered appropriately by the trial Court at the time of trial. 7. Learned APP, I must say, has, however, conceded that in this case no articles and no cash stolen by the applicants have been recovered and that in the F.I.R. neither the name of applicant no. 3 was mentioned nor any allegation against him was made and that the C.I.D. Amravati, at the time of filing of charge-sheet in Crime No. 107/05, has stated that even though there was no sufficient material to proceed further against the applicants in Crime No. 108/05, the charge-sheet has been filed by the then Investigating Officers, who were accused nos. 8 and 9 in the charge-sheet arising out Crime No. 107/05. The approach of learned A.P.P. deserves to be appreciated as it only shows that the learned A.P.P., being an officer of the Court, follows the principle of fairness and lives up to the expectations of Courts of Justice by fairly stating the facts and law in order to serve the cause of justice. 8. So far as applicant no.3 is concerned, I must say that there are neither any allegations made against him in the F.I.R. nor even by way of some reference, his name has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Admittedly, there is no recovery of articles or cash allegedly stolen in this crime. At this stage itself, therefore, it can be said that applicant no. At this stage itself, therefore, it can be said that applicant no. 3 deserves to be straight way discharged from the case. 9. So far as applicants 1 and 2 are concerned, as their names have been mentioned in the F.I.R. in Crime No. 108/05, it would be necessary for this Court to consider the arguments of both the sides in the light of material placed on behalf of the applicants in support of their contentions and also the material pointed out to this Court by the learned A.P.P. to substantiate his argument. 10. In the case of Rukmini Narvekar, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principle of law that although the evidence produced on record by the accused in support of his submissions at the stage of framing of charge cannot be considered and only such material as is indicated under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, can be looked into, the position is different where jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in Section 482 proceedings the Court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision as to whether the charge as framed could be maintained or not. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court can be found in paragraph 9, which are reproduced as under: “In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such material as are indicated in Section 227 Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the Court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (2004 AIR SCW 6813) by the larger Bench to which the very same question had been referred.” 11. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (2004 AIR SCW 6813) by the larger Bench to which the very same question had been referred.” 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that there cannot be an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the Court look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges, though this should be done in very rare cases, i.e. where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted. A useful reference can be made to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 29 of the judgment in Rukmini Narvekar's case, which are reproduced as under: “In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said as an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the Court look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges, though this should be done in very rare cases, i.e. where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted. ….” 12. In the case of Harshendra Kumar supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that materials relied upon by the accused which are in the nature of public documents or the materials which are beyond suspicion or doubt, in certain circumstances, can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 or for that matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that in an appropriate case, if the documents are beyond suspicion or doubt or of unimpeachable character which are produced by the accused in support of his submissions, it would be travesty of justice if the Court refuses to look into the documents and the accused is relegated to trial on the ground that it is a matter of defence and that he must prove his defence during the trial of the case against him. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court appearing in paragraphs 24 and 25 are reproduced as under: “24. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court appearing in paragraphs 24 and 25 are reproduced as under: “24. In Awadh Kishor Gupta this Court while dealing with the scope of power under Section 482 of the Code observed : (SCC p.701, para 13) “13. It is to be noted that the investigation was not complete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, it is not permissible for the court to act as if it was a trial Judge.” “25. In our judgment, the above observations cannot be read to mean that in a criminal case where trial is yet to take place and the matter is at the stage of issuance of summons or taking cognizance, materials relied upon by the accused which are in the nature of public documents or the materials which are beyond suspicion or doubt, in no circumstance, can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 or for that matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code. It is fairly settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. However, in an appropriate case, if one the face of the documents – which are beyond suspicion or doubt – placed by the accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if the accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the trial Court. In such a matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process, the High Court may look into the materials which have significant bearing on the matter at prima facie stage.” 13. In such a matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process, the High Court may look into the materials which have significant bearing on the matter at prima facie stage.” 13. Thus, it would be clear from the law so laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred cases that in order to serve cause of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law, the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has sufficient power to peruse the material or documents which are in the nature of public documents, or which are not of impeachable character and which have a bearing on the right of the prosecution to prosecute the accused or right of the accused to seek his discharge from the case. 14. In the instant case, there is already present on record sufficient material on which the applicants are placing their reliance in support of their submission that the complaint dated 15.10.2005 in Crime No. 108/05 has been filed out of spite and vengeance against them. These materials are in the nature of public documents as they are forming part of charge-sheet, bearing No. 32/07 filed on 16.6.2007 which arose out of Crime No. 107/05. These materials are not only in the nature of public documents but are also of the kind in respect of which no suspicion or doubt as regards contents of the materials can be expressed. Besides, they also throw light upon all the events and back ground of the facts which led to filing of charge-sheet against the applicants in respect of crime No. 108/05 on 31.12.2005. Therefore, following the law laid down in the afore-stated case of Rukmini Narvekar and Harshendra Kumar D., I am of the view that this Court can certainly look into the said documents. 15. Upon considering the summary of crime in Crime No. 107/05, as contained in the charge-sheet filed on behalf of C.I.D., Amravati, I find that when upon detailed investigation made into that crime and also the alleged acts of misconduct of the Investigating Officers, who were initially entrusted with the investigation, the C.I.D. had come to a conclusion that there was absolutely no evidence available in Crime No. 108/05, still the Investigating Officers filed a charge-sheet against these applicants. It has been specifically pointed out in this charge-sheet that Adhiraj, minor son of accused Praveen, was taken to Wardha by applicant no. 1 with the consent of his father and that no articles and no cash were recovered in Crime No. 108 of 2005. It has also been mentioned that even though it became clear during investigation that the complaint dated 15.10.2005 was not based upon credible evidence, the Investigating Officers (accused nos. 8 & 9) deliberately field the charge-sheet against the applicants in Crime No. 108 of 2005. 16. In the trial of sessions case against the accused named in Crime No. 107/05, statements of these accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sessions Court. Copies of statements of accused no. 2 Vasantrao and accused no. 5 Pradeep have been filed on record of this case while copy of statement of accused no. 1 Praveen has been produced before me for perusal during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the applicants. Upon perusal of statements of the accused persons in Crime No. 107/05, it can be seen that all of them in unison have stated before the Court that Adhiraj was taken away with the consent of accused no. 1 Pravin. Pravin is father of Adhiraj and is his lawful guardian. When he states before police while answering a question put to him under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure that Adhiraj was taken away with his consent, I do not think that the trial of the applicants in Crime No. 108/05 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code could stand any further. These answers would be relevant at the time of trial of the applicants in Crime No. 108/05 and when the said answers at this stage itself falsify the allegation of kidnapping of Adhiraj by the applicants, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the applicants, trial of the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code would be an abuse of process of law. Result of the trial is now a foregone conclusion and, as such, it cannot be allowed to go any further. 17. Result of the trial is now a foregone conclusion and, as such, it cannot be allowed to go any further. 17. Reverting back to the conclusion of C.I.D. Amravati in charge-sheet bearing No. 32/07, I must say that these allegations are by and large supported by the material collected and the material not collected during the course of investigation in Crime No. 108/05. In fact, there is no evidence that could be collected by the Investigating Officer in the present crime as against the present applicants. It is an admitted fact that no articles and no cash have been recovered in this crime. Complainant is accused no. 5 in Crime No. 107/05 and in that crime the initial investigating officers have been found by the superior officers of the police department of not only having committed some acts amounting to dereliction of duty but also the acts which were criminal in nature and sufficient to prosecute them for the offences punishable under Sections 217 and 218 of Indian Penal Code. Ultimately, these conclusions of C.I.D. have been found to be correct by the Sessions Court and, therefore, the Sessions Court convicted accused nos. 8 and 9, the initial investigators, for the said offences. When these facts together with admissions of accused in the trial arising from Crime No. 107/05 are taken together, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that although there has been no sufficient evidence collected during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officers deliberately with an intention to assist the complainant Pradeep in his design to take revenge with the applicants, have registered offences punishable under Sections 363 and 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against all the applicants and later on even filed a charge-sheet in this crime against the applicants without being successful in collecting sufficient evidence. 18. It appears that the allegations made against applicants were actuated by mala fides and spite on the part of complainant Pradeep as he wanted to teach a lesson to these applicants for their act of indiscretion in lodging F.I.R. against his brother Pravin, he himself, his parents and sister in Crime No. 107/05. 18. It appears that the allegations made against applicants were actuated by mala fides and spite on the part of complainant Pradeep as he wanted to teach a lesson to these applicants for their act of indiscretion in lodging F.I.R. against his brother Pravin, he himself, his parents and sister in Crime No. 107/05. It is surprising that although Adhiraj had been saying all the time that he was taken to Wardha with the consent of his father, one statement of Adhiraj was got recorded on 17.10.2005, which showed lack of consent of his father. Subsequently, it came to light that said statement was fabricated by the then Investigating Officers to suit the illegal design of Pradeep. This fact became crystal clear after C.I.D. took over the investigation in Crime No. 107/05 and recorded statement of Adhiraj on 8.8.2006 in a fair manner. It is said that truth can never be hidden permanently and it has a tendency to come out in the open sooner or later. This is the truth about the truth. It can be experienced always and here also by considering admissions of Pravin, Vasantrao and Pradip given in their Section 313 statements in sessions case relating to Crime No. 107/05. Sooner or later they had to admit the truth, which they did by saying Adhiraj was taken to Wardha with the consent of his father. Ultimately, what Adhiraj was saying all the time in this case as regards giving of consent by his father proved to be correct through admissions of his father as well as his paternal grand father Vasant and paternal uncle Pradip. This fact would show as to how Pradip was bent upon settling the score with the applicants, although whatever applicant no. 1 had done by filing F.I.R. on 13.10.2005 was only to point out to the police what he felt to be an offence of a serious nature committed by the husband and in-laws of his daughter Vaishali, with a desire to set the law in motion, and applicant no. 1 was also found to be partly successful after Pravin, the husband of deceased Vaishali, and also the initial investigators were convicted by the Sessions Court in Crime No. 107/05. 19. 1 was also found to be partly successful after Pravin, the husband of deceased Vaishali, and also the initial investigators were convicted by the Sessions Court in Crime No. 107/05. 19. Thus, I find that the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 2 of 2006 are actuated with mala fides and have been instituted with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance upon the applicants and, as such, this would be a fit case for interfering with the impugned order, as held in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, supra. 20. In the result, I am of the view that criminal application deserves to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly. Impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Applicants are discharged from Regular Criminal Case No. 2 of 2006 and its proceedings pending on the file of J.M.F.C. (Court No.9), Amravati, are hereby quashed and set aside. Application stands disposed of in these terms.