JUDGMENT : PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J. 1. Applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 13.9.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 144/2022 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur framed charges under 304, 308 of IPC against him. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.3.2022 at about 10:30 p.m. applicant drove his car rashly and negligently in drunken state and badly dashed one Laxmikant Dohre, a pushcart seller, complainant Shivam Goswami and two others. As a result said Laxmikant Dohre suffered grievous injuries, whereas complainant suffered injury on his right forearm. Said Laxmikant Dohre was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Raipur where he was declared dead by the doctor. Incident was reported in the concerned police station based upon which Crime bearing No. 115/2022 was registered against the applicant. After completion of investigation, police filed challan for the aforementioned offences. The Court below after hearing both the parties, framed charges against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 304 & 308 of IPC on the ground that one person died and three others sustained grievous injury due to dangerous and negligent act of applicant i.e. driving the vehicle in high speed after consuming liquor. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that from the material available in charge sheet, it cannot be said that the applicant knowingly or intentionally committed the offence because the incident which had taken place was a pure road accident and was not a deliberate act of applicant so as to attract framing of charges against the applicant for the offence under Sections 304 & 308 of IPC. He submits that the offence, if any, will fall under Section 304A of IPC and at best, the applicant can be attributed for rash and negligent driving of vehicle. The Court below has committed grave error by framing charges under Sections 304 & 308 of IPC. Hence, the order framing charges under Sections 304 & 308 of IPC against applicant be quashed and he be discharged from said charges. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the decisions in case of State of Gujarat vs. Haider Ali Kalu Bhai, 1976 (1) SCC 889 , Mahadev Prasad Kaushik vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 14 SCC 479 and State through PS Lodhi Colony vs. Sanjeev Nanda, (2010) 9 SCC 368 . 4. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the decisions in case of State of Gujarat vs. Haider Ali Kalu Bhai, 1976 (1) SCC 889 , Mahadev Prasad Kaushik vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 14 SCC 479 and State through PS Lodhi Colony vs. Sanjeev Nanda, (2010) 9 SCC 368 . 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant, would submit that applicant drove the vehicle in drunken condition in such a manner by which it can be easily inferred that he was having the knowledge that his act would result into death or bodily injury to innocent people on road. He submits that the facts, as revealed, would justify framing of charge under Sections 304 of IPC as the applicant has acted in a manner that he can be attributed with the knowledge to cause death revealing an offence under Section 304 IPC. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial Court framing charges under Section 304 & 308 IPC against applicant does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with revision petition. 6. In case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles to be borne in mind for proper exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, particularly in the context of quashing of charge. The principles in Amit Kapoor’s case (supra) were recently quoted with approval in case of Manendra Prasad Tiwari vs. Amit Kumar Tiwari and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 1057. One of the principles on which revisional jurisdiction can be exercised is that if the allegations are patently so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. Relevant principles culled out by Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforementioned decision read thus: “27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. Relevant principles culled out by Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforementioned decision read thus: “27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.” 7. In case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 , has observed in Para-25 as under: “25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (See: Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi and Others vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and Others, (1990) 4 SCC 76 ).” 8. In case of State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 , the Supreme Court explaining the meaning of the word ‘presume’ has observed thus: “32.......if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has commuted the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.” 9. In case of Supriya Jain vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2023) 7 SCC 711 , relying on its earlier decision in case of Amit Kapoor (supra) has observed thus: “18. Applying the broad principles as enunciated by this Court, we hold that it is not one of those rare cases where the uncontroverted allegations appearing from the materials on record notwithstanding, it can successfully be contended that even no prima facie opinion can be formed pointing to commission of any offence by the petitioner. It is trite that the conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from the offence to do which the conspiracy is entered into and that such an offence, if actually committed, would be the subject-matter of a separate charge. It is trite that the conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from the offence to do which the conspiracy is entered into and that such an offence, if actually committed, would be the subject-matter of a separate charge. The allegations that the petitioner was found counting the cash received by the principal accused from the second respondent in the presence of a listed witness and that she conspired with her sister, the principal accused, to cheat and defraud the second respondent, persuade us to record that involvement of the petitioner, howsoever limited, cannot be ruled out at this stage and, therefore, the trial ought to be permitted to proceed and she obliged to stand trial. 19. For the reasons aforesaid, we uphold the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. The trial court may proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment and order which is for the purpose of a decision on the appeal.” 10. Further, at the stage of charge, this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not required to go for mini trial as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 15 SCC 584 , in Para-7, which reads thus: “7. We are of the view that the High Court could not have conducted a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge, and that too in revision filed against the order framing charges. We are of the view that it is impossible to state at this stage that no case could possibly be made out for ultimate conviction of Respondent No. 2. This being the case, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial Court.” 11. In case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others, (2022) 12 SCC 657 , the trial Court has discharged the accused persons from the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and proceeded to frame charge against accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. The complainant challenged the order of trial Court before the High Court and the same was affirmed by the High Court, which was put to challenge in a criminal appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While deciding the matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “31. The complainant challenged the order of trial Court before the High Court and the same was affirmed by the High Court, which was put to challenge in a criminal appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While deciding the matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “31. To put it in other words, whether the cause of death has any nexus with the alleged assault on the deceased by the accused persons could have been determined only after the recording of oral evidence of the eyewitnesses and the expert witness along with the other substantive evidence on record. 33. Whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part II IPC could have been decided by the trial court only after the evaluation of the entire oral evidence that may be led by the prosecution as well as by the defence, if any, comes on record. Ultimately, upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record at the end of the trial, the trial court may take one view or the other i.e. whether it is a case of murder or case of culpable homicide. But at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court could not have reached to such a conclusion merely relying upon the port mortem report on record. The High Court also overlooked such fundamental infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and proceeded to affirm the same.” 12. From the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is appearing that while dealing with revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. seeking for quashing of charge framed against an accused, the Court is not expected to consider and conduct a roving inquiry into the material on record, and is only expected to see whether the offence as alleged was prima-facie made out before the trial Court for the purpose of framing of charge. In other words, for interfering with the charge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, pre-requisite is that there is no prima facie material for framing charge. Interference at this stage should be only in rare cases. 13. In the case at hand, going by the case of prosecution, the specific allegation against the applicant is that in drunken state of mind he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, caused the accident which resulted into death of one person and bodily injury to three others. Interference at this stage should be only in rare cases. 13. In the case at hand, going by the case of prosecution, the specific allegation against the applicant is that in drunken state of mind he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, caused the accident which resulted into death of one person and bodily injury to three others. There is statement of injured witnesses also that the applicant deliberately driving his car speedily in rash and negligent manner caused accident, he was under the influence of liquor and smell of liquor was emanating from him. 14. Decision rendered in case of Haider Ali Kalubhai (supra) is in an appeal after conviction, hence it is of no help to the applicant. As far as the decision in case of Mahadev Prasad Kaushi (supra) is concerned, the same being based on different facts is distinguishable. In that case, criminal case was registered against a medical practitioner who treated a patient and during treatment the patient died. Decision in case of Sanjeev Nanda (supra) is also in an appeal after completion of trial. Hence, both the aforementioned rulings are also of no help to the applicant. 15. At this stage, the Court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of the evidence and material on record and is only required to see whether a prima facie case has been made out or not. Mini trial is not permissible at this stage. From the statement of the complainant and other material, it cannot be said that it only reveals an offence of rash and negligent driving. A case of reckless and utterly callous conduct, as such, may attract the offence under Section 304 of IPC. Nonetheless, the allegations levelled against applicant are true or not, is the matter which cannot be determined at the stage of framing of charge and any such determination can take place only at the conclusion of trial. However, in light of of material available in record, at this stage it cannot be concluded that framing of charge against applicant by the Court below is either bad in law or abuse of process of law or without any material. 16. Resultantly, the criminal revision being bereft of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 17. However, in light of of material available in record, at this stage it cannot be concluded that framing of charge against applicant by the Court below is either bad in law or abuse of process of law or without any material. 16. Resultantly, the criminal revision being bereft of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 17. However, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court are only for the purposes of deciding present revision petition against the order framing charge and shall have no bearing on the merits of case during trial. Applicant will be at liberty to raise all the grounds as are available to him, including the grounds raised in this revision petition and the trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law.