ORDER 1. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings pending before learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No.15/2018 and order dated 23.07.2019 against the petitioners for offence under Sections 27, 28, 22 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act whereby charge of the case have been framed against the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case against the petitioners is pending before District and Sessions Judge, Merta. The case falls within the category of warrant case instituted on a complaint in which, it is mandatory that the precharge evidence should have been recorded before framing the charge against the petitioners but in this case the trial Court had not taken the pre-charge evidence and straightaway framed the charge against the petitioners. In these circumstances, the order regarding framing of charge is per se illegal and deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the material available on record. 5. The question for consideration before this Court is whether in a warrant case otherwise than on a police report, even before any evidence is led, can the Magistrate straightaway proceed to frame charges against the accused. In the first instance, it is relevant to quote Section 246(1) of Cr.P.C.- "246. Procedure where accused is not discharged. - (1) If, when such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused." 6. Section 246(1) falls under Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C., which provides for trial of warrant cases by Magistrate otherwise than on a police report. 7. When the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate under Section 244 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and may also issue summons to the witnesses for cross-examination or production of any document or thing. This is evidence before charge. 7. When the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate under Section 244 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and may also issue summons to the witnesses for cross-examination or production of any document or thing. This is evidence before charge. Under Section 246(1) Cr.P.C., it is on the basis of such evidence that the Magistrate proceeds with the framing of charges, if he is satisfied that there exists a prima facie case against the accused. 8. This question also came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajoy Kumar Ghose vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 115 , and the Hon'ble Apex court held as follows - "39....The language of the Section clearly suggests that it is on the basis of the evidence offered by the complainant at the stage of Section 244(1) Cr.P.C., that the charge is to be framed, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is any ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter. Therefore, ordinarily, when the evidence is offered under Section 244 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution, the Magistrate has to consider the same, and if he is convinced, the Magistrate can frame the charge. 40. Now here, there is, however, one grey area. Section 246(1) Cr.P.C. is very peculiarly worded. The said grey area is on account of phrase 'or at any previous stage of the case'. The question is as to whether, even before any evidence is led under Section 244 Cr.P.C., can the Magistrate straightaway proceed to frame a charge. The debate on this question is not new, though there is no authoritative pronouncement of this Court, on that issue. There are cases, where the High Courts have specifically taken a view that the phrase does not empower the Magistrate to frame any charge in the absence of any evidence, whatsoever. It must be, at this stage, borne in mind that the word used in Section 246 Cr.P.C. is 'evidence', so also, in Section 244 Cr.P.C., the word used is 'evidence'. It must be, at this stage, borne in mind that the word used in Section 246 Cr.P.C. is 'evidence', so also, in Section 244 Cr.P.C., the word used is 'evidence'. Therefore, ordinarily, the scheme of the Section 246 Cr.P.C. is that, it is only on the basis of any evidence that the Magistrate has to decide as to whether there is a ground to presume that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter. 53. Now, coming to the facts of this case, it is clear that the opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses is lost, as the Trial Court has straightaway proceeded to frame the charge. In that view, we would have to quash the order, framing the charge. It is accordingly, quashed. The matter will now go back before the Trial Court, where the prosecution may offer the witnesses under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. and the opportunity to cross-examine, would be offered to the accused. It is only thereafter, that the Trial Court would proceed to decide as to whether the charge is to be framed or not. The charge framed in this case is clearly premature, in view of the reasons given by us. The order framing the charge would, therefore, have to be set aside." 9. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dhanna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Misc. Petition No.2393 of 2012 decided on 01.05.2013, relevant portion of which reads as follows:- "Undisputedly in this case, the Police had filed a negative Final Report. The complainant protested against the same and trial Court adopted the proceedings under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter summoned the accused for the offences under Section 409 I.P.C. Thus, the case assumed a nature of a complaint case as soon as the proceedings under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were adopted. As the offence involved is Section 409 I.P.C., the case would fall within the category of a warrant case instituted upon a complaint. In this view of the matter and keeping in view the view rendered by this Court in the case of Pappu Vs. As the offence involved is Section 409 I.P.C., the case would fall within the category of a warrant case instituted upon a complaint. In this view of the matter and keeping in view the view rendered by this Court in the case of Pappu Vs. Rekha (supra), this Court is of the opinion that once the procedure of complaint case is adopted by the trial Court in a warrant case, it is mandatory that precharge evidence should be recorded before charge can be framed against the accused." 10. Since the present case has been instituted in a complaint case in which, once the procedure of complaint case is adopted by the trial Court in the warrant case, in light of the scheme of the 1973 Act and the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay Kumar Ghose case (supra) as well as similar view has been taken by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is mandatory that pre-charge evidence should be recorded by the trial Court before framing the charge against the petitioners. But in present case, in absence of pre-charge evidence, the trial Court straightaway proceeded to frame the charges against the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 23.07.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Merta is quashed and is hereby set aside. The present case is remanded back to the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to record pre-charge evidence in the case before considering the framing of charge against the petitioners. 12. Stay petition also stands disposed of.