JUDGMENT : P.S.RANA, J. 1. Present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing criminal proceedings and FIR No. 40 of 2011 dated 17.6.2011 registered under sections 302 and 506 IPC in criminal case No.31-R/7 of 2012 title State of HP Vs. Dalip Singh Himral @ Dainy. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. Tilak Raj filed FIR alleging therein that on dated 16.6.2011 at about 1.30 noon he received a phone call and he was informed by way of phone call that since night of 14th & 15th June 2011 deceased Kamlesh Kumar had left for his residential house. It is alleged that deceased Kamlesh Kumar did not reach in his residential house and on search it was found that motor cycle No. HP 06A-2293 and the bag of deceased were found at a place about ½ Km towards Pandoya in a lonely place. It is further alleged that deceased had love affairs with Prabha Devi since one year. It is further alleged that on 22.7.2011 dead body of deceased was found in Govind dam District Bilaspur H.P. It is further alleged that post mortem of deceased body was conducted on 23.7.2011 in regional hospital Bilaspur H.P. It is further alleged that investigation was handed over to State CID Bharari Shimla as per direction of police head quarter vide letter No. CB-3-19/11/2010-31699-31702 dated 11.8.2011. It is further alleged that on 29.9.2011 accused produced before learned Judicial Magistrate Rampur Bushahr District Shimla and investigating officer moved an application stating therein that there is no evidence against accused. It is further alleged that thereafter learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rampur discharged accused qua offence punishable under sections 302 and 506 IPC on dated 29.9.2011. It is further alleged that thereafter cancellation report prepared but learned Director Prosecutor did not agree with cancellation report submitted by State CID Bharari Shimla. It is further alleged that thereafter further investigation under section 173 (8) Code of criminal procedure 1973 conducted as per direction of competent authority. It is further alleged that thereafter cancellation report prepared but learned Director Prosecutor did not agree with cancellation report submitted by State CID Bharari Shimla. It is further alleged that thereafter further investigation under section 173 (8) Code of criminal procedure 1973 conducted as per direction of competent authority. It is further alleged that statement of Prabha Devi sole eye witness recorded under section 164 of the Code of criminal procedure 1973 and thereafter challan was filed against accused under sections 302 and 506 IPC.It is further alleged that thereafter on dated 17.10.2012 learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rampur District Shimla HP committed the case under section 209 Cr.PC to learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur at Rampur for trial and thereafter learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur on dated 20.2.2014 held that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused for criminal offence punishable under sections 302 and 506 IPC on the alleged facts that accused hit deceased Kamlesh with a stone on his head and when he become unconscious accused threw deceased in river Satluj and thereafter dead body of deceased was recovered on 22.7.2011 near Swarghat in District Bilaspur H.P and on the alleged additional facts that accused also intimidated Prabha Devi sole eye witness of incident and threatened her to kill her in case she disclosed the incident to anyone. Learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur at Rampur framed charge against accused under sections 302 and 506 IPC on dated 20.2.2014. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter accused challenged entire criminal proceedings under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer to quash entire criminal proceedings against accused pending before learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioners and also perused entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in present petition: 1. Whether petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons. 5. 4. Following points arise for determination in present petition: 1. Whether petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that on 29.9.2011 learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rampur discharged accused under sections 302 and 506 IPC and discharge order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class was not challenged before competent authority of law and after discharge order by learned Judicial Magistrate dated 29.9.2011 fresh challan against accused cannot be filed in the present case under sections 302 and 506 IPC is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that offence punishable under section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by court of Sessions. I t is held that offence punishable under section 302 IPC is not triable by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rampur. It is held that learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rampur was not legally competent to discharge the accused qua offence punishable under section 302 IPC. It is held that Judicial Magistrate cannot pass order of discharge in sessions trial under section 227 of Code of criminal procedure 1973. It is held that only learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur at Rampur was legally competent to discharge accused qua criminal offence punishable under section 302 IPC triable by Sessions Court under section 227 of Code of criminal procedure 1973. It is held that whole approach of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rampur while discharging accused qua criminal offence under section 302 IPC triable by Sessions Judge exclusively on dated 29.9.2011 is erroneous, void ab-initio and impermissible. See AIR 1978 SC 514 title Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Union of India and others. In the present case thereafter learned Judicial Magistrate Rampur has legally committed the case to learned Sessions Judge under section 209 Cr.PC on dated 17.10.2012 for trial. 6. See AIR 1978 SC 514 title Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Union of India and others. In the present case thereafter learned Judicial Magistrate Rampur has legally committed the case to learned Sessions Judge under section 209 Cr.PC on dated 17.10.2012 for trial. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that Prabha Devi sole eye witness of the incident in her earlier statement has stated that accused hit deceased on his head with stone but when her statement was recorded before CID official she stated that her earlier statement was incorrect and she made her earlier statement under threat and pressure from Smt. Neelam who is serving in police department as constable and who is real sister of the mother of deceased and on this ground petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Judicial finding whether Prabha Devi has given her earlier statement under pressure or not cannot be given at this stage of case because same fact is a complicated issue of fact and complicated issue of fact will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case and the same fact will be decided by learned Trial Court after recording statement of sole eye witness namely Prabha Devi in the Court in accordance with law. It is well settled law that statement recorded under section 161 Cr.PC during investigation cannot be used for any purpose in judicial proceedings except for contradiction purpose only in the manner provided by section 145 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 as per section 162 of Code of criminal procedure 1973. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that investigating officer inspected the place of incident in the presence of Prabha Devi along with her father Lal Chand, Pradhan gram panchayat Parlog Hem Raj Verma, Satish Mehta, Surinder Kumar and Sandeep Kumar and she gave statement before police authority under section 161 Cr.PC that deceased Kamlesh @ Papi jumped into river Satluj and statement of Prabha Devi was also corroborated by the statement of Sanjeev Kumar, Gayatri Devi, Hem Raj Verma, Satish Mehta, Surender Kumar and Sandeep Kumar and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Judicial finding relating to the fact whether sole eye witness Prabha Devi has given statement before above stated persons that deceased Kamlesh himself jumped into river Satluj cannot be given at this stage of case. Judicial finding relating to statement of Prabha Devi will be given after recording statement of Prabha Devi in accordance with law during judicial proceedings. Fact whether deceased Kamlesh jumped into Satluj river voluntarily is also a complicated issue of fact and judicial finding relating to complicated issue of fact would be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case and it is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial finding at this stage of case that deceased had jumped into river voluntarily because statements recorded by police during investigation cannot be used for any purpose except for contradiction purpose in the manner provided by section 145 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that investigation was conducted by State CID and without assigning any plausible reason challan against accused filed under sections 302 and 506 IPC by other investigating agency contrary to law and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Investigating agency has submitted supplementary investigation report under section 173 Cr.PC alleging that accused has committed cognizable criminal offence punishable under sections 302 and 506 IPC. It is well settled law that investigating agency can submitsupplementary investigation report under section 173 (8) of the Code of criminal procedure 1973 even after taking cognizance by Judicial Magistrate. It is held that notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under section 173 of the Code of criminal procedure 1973 the right of the investigating agency to further investigate was not exhausted and investigating agency could exercise such right when further evidence oral or documentary came to light under section 173 (8) of Code of criminal procedure 1973. In the present statement of Prabha Devi recorded under section 164 of the Code of criminal procedure 1973 before learned Judicial Magistrate and Prabha Devi has specifically stated under section 164 of the Code of criminal procedure 1973 that accused hit deceased with stone and thereafter deceased became unconscious and thereafter accused threw deceased in river Satluj. In the present statement of Prabha Devi recorded under section 164 of the Code of criminal procedure 1973 before learned Judicial Magistrate and Prabha Devi has specifically stated under section 164 of the Code of criminal procedure 1973 that accused hit deceased with stone and thereafter deceased became unconscious and thereafter accused threw deceased in river Satluj. In the present case only eye witness is Prabha Devi. In view of the statement of sole eye witness Prabha Devi that accused hit deceased with stone and thereafter deceased became unconscious and thereafter accused threw deceased into river is sufficient to frame charge against accused under sections 302 and 506 IPC. Judicial finding relating to evidentiary value of the statement of Prabha Devi recorded under section 164 Cr.PC cannot be given at this stage of case because it is complicated issue of fact. Judicial finding relating to statement of sole eye witness Prabha Devi recorded under section 164 of the Code of criminal procedure 1973 will be given by learned Trial Court after recording testimony of Prabha Devi in judicial proceeding in trial of case and after giving due opportunities to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that Prabha Devi has stated that accused hit deceased with stone upon his head but in the post mortem report and medical examination report when dead body was recovered from river Satluj at Swarghat Bilaspur on dated 22.7.2011 no injury was found on the head of deceased and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Judicial find ingrelating to medical examination report cannot be given at this stage of case. Judicial finding relating to medical examination report will be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial finding relating to medical report submitted by medical officer without examination of medical officer in Court in accordance with law. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that accused is respectable member of the society and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that accused is respectable member of the society and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Issue of absence of mensrea or actus reus will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunities to both the parties to adduce oral as well documentaries evidence in support of their case. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings relating to complicated issue of facts at this stage of criminal proceeding. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that Public Prosecutor has no role to play and investigating officer cannot be directed to consult Public Prosecutor before filing report in view of ruling in AIR 2000 SC 1731 title R.Sarala Vs. T.S.Velu and others and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Judicial finding relating to fact whether Public Prosecutor has int erferedz in the investigation of present case cannot be given at this stage of case. Judicial finding will be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. Whether Public Prosecutor has interfered in the investigation is also complicated issue of fact and judicial findings against Public Prosecutor cannot be given at this stage of case unless opportunity granted to Public Prosecutor to rebut allegation in accordance with law. It is well settled law that in judicial proceedings no one should be condemned un-heard on the concept of audi alteram partem. It is well settled law that report filed under section 173 Cr.PC and statement of witness recorded under section 161 Cr.PC can be used only for contradictions purpose in the manner provided by section 145 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and cannot be used for any other purpose in judicial proceedings. See AIR 1999 SC 1969 title Ramparsad Vs. State of Maharashtra. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that there are no sufficient grounds against accused to proceed under sections 302 and 506 IPC and accused be discharged under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. State of Maharashtra. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that there are no sufficient grounds against accused to proceed under sections 302 and 506 IPC and accused be discharged under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. In the present case after perusal of testimony of Prabha Devi recorded under section 161 Cr.PC and under section 164 Cr.PC and after perusal of testimony of corroborative prosecution witnesses and after perusal osf documentary evidence annexed with challan i.e. post mortem report and chemical analyst report placed on record it is held that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against accused under sections 302 and 506 IPC. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to ischarge accused under section 227 of the Code of criminal procedure in sessions trial pending under sections 302 and 506 IPC. 13. It is well settled law that at the time of framing charge meticulous consideration of evidence and other materials is not necessary. It is well settled law that at the stage of framing charge trial court is not required to marshal materials on record but only has to prima facie consider whether there are sufficient materials against accused or not proved. It is well settled law that at the time of framing of charge materials filed by accused should not be considered. See AIR 1981 SC 1548 title Mohd. Akbar Dar and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others. See AIR 1977 SC 2433 title Yashpal Mittal Vs. State of Punja. See AIR 2005 SC 359 title State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi. See AIR 2013 SC 633 title Ajay Kumar Vs. State of 1680 Rajasthan. See AIR 1980 SC 52 title Supdt. & Remembrance of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar. See AIR 1977 SC 2018 title State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh. See AIR 2001 SC 40 title State of Delhi Vs. Gyan Devi. See AIR 2000 SC 665 title State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and others. See AIR 1977 SC 2041 State of Maharashtra Vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj. 14. It is well settled law that powers of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under section 482 of the Code of criminal procedure 1973 should be exercised in exceptional case. Gyan Devi. See AIR 2000 SC 665 title State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and others. See AIR 1977 SC 2041 State of Maharashtra Vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj. 14. It is well settled law that powers of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under section 482 of the Code of criminal procedure 1973 should be exercised in exceptional case. It is well settled law that normal process of criminal Trial should not be cut short in asual manner. See 2008 (8) SCC 329 title State of Delhi Vs. Gyan Devi. See 2008 (4) SCC 471 title CBI Vs. K.M.Sharan. See 2012 (10) SCC 155 title M.P. Vs. Surendra Kori. See JT 2015 (3) SC 185 title Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. See 1995 (2) SCC 449 title State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thirukkural Perumal. See 1992 Supplement (1) SCC 335 title State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final order). 15. In view of findings upon point No.1 petition filed under section 482 Cr.PC is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 15.11.2016. Learned Trial Court will dispose of case expeditiously in accordance with law because present session s trial ispending since 2012. File of learned Trial Court along with certify copy of order be sent ba ck forthwith. Observations will not effect merits of the case in any manner. Cr.MMO No. 98 of 2014 is disposed of. All pending application (s) if any also disposed of.