ORDER : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1.The present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Nagaur in Sessions Case No.02/2018 whereby learned Judge framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 307/149, 326/149, 120B IPC. 2. Facts in brief are that on 11.09.2017, complainant/respondent No.2 Subhash gave a written report at Police Station Kotwali Nagaur to the effect that when he along with his brother Prema Ram were sitting at a tea stall, at that time, accused Surendra @ Surya accompanied by another individual, came on a motorcycle and fired a gunshot at them, which struck his brother Prema Ram. A second gunshot was also fired, but missed its target, after which the assailants fled the scene. On this report, the police registered FIR No.393/2017. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused persons including the present petitioner before the competent court and after arguments on charge, charges for offence under Sections 307/149, 326/149, 120B IPC were framed against the present petitioner. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the name of the present petitioner was mentioned in the FIR, nor the injured and other witnesses named the petitioner in their statements. The petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of an interrogation note of co-accused, according to which, the co-accused resided in the house of the petitioner. Except that, there is nothing on record which connects the present petitioner with the alleged crime. Thus, the aforesaid charges have not been made out against the present petitioner. Hence, the impugned order of framing charge is per-se illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the revision and submitted that the order impugned of framing charge against the petitioner is perfectly justified and requires no interference from this Court. Further, at the time of framing charge, meticulous examination of evidence is not necessary. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as carefully gone through the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, there exists no substantive evidence on record establishing any connection between the present petitioner and the alleged offence. Further, at the time of framing charge, meticulous examination of evidence is not necessary. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as carefully gone through the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, there exists no substantive evidence on record establishing any connection between the present petitioner and the alleged offence. Notably, the FIR does not name the petitioner as an accused, nor do the statements of the injured party or other witnesses implicate him in the commission of the crime. The petitioner’s involvement was purportedly inferred solely from an interrogation note of a co-accused. However, such an interrogation note is inadmissible as evidence under established legal principles, rendering it insufficient to establish the petitioner’s guilt. 7. This Court opines that in order to sustain the framing of charges, it is a well-settled legal requirement that the prosecution must demonstrate a prima facie case, i.e., sufficient material that would justify framing charges against the accused. This initial assessment must be based on admissible evidence that, when viewed in the light most favourable to the prosecution, reasonably indicates the accused’s involvement in the alleged offence. Mere suspicion or inadmissible evidence cannot meet this threshold. Since the only basis for implicating the petitioner is an inadmissible interrogation note, and there exists no other credible evidence linking him to the crime, the requirement of establishing a prima facie case is not fulfilled. 8. In light of this, the Court finds that the evidence against the petitioner is inadmissible and insufficient to substantiate any involvement in the alleged offence. The trial Court, therefore, committed a significant error in framing charges against the petitioner without concrete and admissible evidence establishing a prima facie case. Such an order, being legally flawed and devoid of merit, cannot be upheld in the eyes of law. 9. Hence, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur to the extent of framing charge qua the petitioner is hereby set aside and the petitioner is hereby discharged from the offences under Sections 307/149, 326/149, 120B IPC. 10. Stay application is also decided.