JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. The instant Criminal Misc. Application has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 10.07.2024, passed in Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2024, arising out of Criminal Case No. 91 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand vs. Mithileshwar Singh, under Sections 354, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District Almora. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged implicating the present applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, which was registered as Case Crime No. 03 of 2022, wherein, after concluding the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 427 IPC, in which, after taking cognizance the applicant was summoned and vide order 13.02.2024, the Trial Court framed the charges for the said offences. Being aggrieved with the order dated 13.02.2024, passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora, a Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2024 was preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District Almora, which was dismissed on 10.07.2024 and the order passed by the Trial Court dated 13.02.2024 was confirmed. While dismissing the Revision, the Revisional Court directed the Trial Court to frame fresh charge by mentioning the date and place of incident. 3. By the instant application the present applicant is challenging the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 10.07.2024 on the ground that on the one hand the revisional court affirmed the order dated 13.02.2024, whereby the Trial Court framed the charges and on the other hand, the Revisional Court directed the Trial Court to frame the fresh charge by mentioning the date and place of the incident. In addition to this, the present applicant is also challenging the entire proceedings on the ground that there is no sufficient material to frame the charges against the applicant and there are no ingredients which constitute the offence under Sections 354 and 427 IPC and there is no prima facie evidence to proceed against the present applicant. 4. Earlier, the present applicant approached this Court preferring the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1926 of 2022, whereby the interim protection was granted to the applicant on 17.10.2022 and thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed and the writ petition was disposed of finally. 4. Earlier, the present applicant approached this Court preferring the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1926 of 2022, whereby the interim protection was granted to the applicant on 17.10.2022 and thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed and the writ petition was disposed of finally. Thereafter, an application was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court bearing C-482 Petition No. 1611 of 2023 and the said Application was disposed of finally in the light of the judgement rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577. The allegations against the applicant is that in the institution, the applicant as well as the complainant are posted as Lecturer and the applicant used to misbehave and humiliate the complainant and a complaint was also made to the Principal of the institution. Consequently, the First Information Report was lodged against the applicant by the respondent-complainant on 29.09.2022 bearing Case Crime No. 03 of 2022, wherein the charge-sheet was filed and after taking cognizance the charges has been framed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no material for constituting the offences, for which, charges have been framed. Apart form this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charges as framed are completely against the mandate of Section 211 and 212 of Cr.P.C., since there is no any description about the date, time and place of the incident and in a very mechanical manner the charges have been framed. 5. I perused the order passed by the Trial Court dated 13.02.2024 which pertains to framing of charge against the applicant as well as order passed by the Revisional Court. 6. Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 pertains to the charge and Section 211 of Cr.P.C. pertains to contents of charge and Section 212 of Cr.P.C. makes a provision for giving particulars as to time, place and person while framing charge and Section 213 pertains to the particulars of the alleged offence. Section 214 of Cr.P.C. provides that in every charge words used in describing the offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them respectively by the law under which such offence is punishable. Section 215 of Cr.P.C. pertains to effect in framing charge. 8. Section 214 of Cr.P.C. provides that in every charge words used in describing the offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them respectively by the law under which such offence is punishable. Section 215 of Cr.P.C. pertains to effect in framing charge. 8. Section 211 to 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, insures that the accused person is informed of the offences or matters for which he or she is arrested so that the person prepare the side of defects for the trial. 9. Charge (charge) has been defined under Section 2 (b) of Cr.P.C. The definition is an inclusive definition i.e. it tells what all can be brought under the purview of the term charge and it does not explain the meaning of the same. The term charge, in simple terms, is informing the accused person of the offences / grounds under which the person concerned has been charged, so that the accused can get knowledge of the matter of which he has been arrested and can prepare the defences for the same. The framing of charges is a very crucial aspect as it determines the course of the case further. Section 211 to 214 gives explicit directions as to how a charge form needs to be drawn. Mere mentioning of Sections without stating the substance in the charge is a serious breach of procedure. 10. The sections as aforesaid deal with the contents /essential components required to constitute to frame the charge in Cr.P.C. The essential components includes the name of the offence charged against the person in case the name of the offence is clearly mentioned in any law, the same shall be used, however, if no such offence is mentioned in any law, the offence should be clearly described while framing charge. It is also mandatory to mention the exact law and sections under which the offence is charged and charge should be written in the language of the Court. As it appears from the order passed by the Magistrate dated 13.02.2024 it reveals that the charge has been framed without description of time and place of the incident. Section 212 Cr.P.C. deals with the particular of the date and time of the commission of alleged offence and the same are completely missing in the order framing charge. As it appears from the order passed by the Magistrate dated 13.02.2024 it reveals that the charge has been framed without description of time and place of the incident. Section 212 Cr.P.C. deals with the particular of the date and time of the commission of alleged offence and the same are completely missing in the order framing charge. It is settled principal of law that in every charge the words used in describing offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached by the law. 11. On perusal of the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 10.07.2024, it reveals that the Revisional Court rightly have not gone through all these aspects whether the offences are made out or not. While framing of charge, the court cannot go with the mini trial. So far as the order framing charge is concerned, the Revisional Court though directed the Trial Court to frame fresh charge by mentioning date and place of the incident, however, while remanding the matter only for the purposes of framing the fresh charge, the Revisional Court should not confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court dated 13.02.2024 whereby the charges were framed. So far as the remand to frame fresh charge is concerned, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Revisional Court and to that extent the order passed by the Revisional Court is affirmed with this modification that the Trial Court may frame fresh charges strictly as per the mandate of the provisions contained in Chapter XVII of the Cr.P.C. 12. Accordingly, the order passed by the Trial Court dated 13.02.2024, is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court. The present application preferred under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is disposed of finally with a direction to the Trial Court to frame the fresh charge as per the mandate of the provisions contained in Chapter XVII of the Cr.P.C., by giving full description of offence date and place of incident. 13. Subject to the directions as aforesaid, present C528 Application is disposed of finally.