Order : SANDEEP SHAH, J. 1. The appellant, by way of the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has challenged the order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hanumangarh, whereby charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 323 /34 & 354(a) read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(11) read with Section 6 of the SC/ST Act and Section 3(1)(10) read with Section 6 of the SC/ST Act. 2. Originally, the appeal was filed by the present appellant along with Navdeep Singh and Mohar Singh. However, by way of order dated 05.07.2023, the appeal qua appellants- Navdeep Singh and Mohar Singh was dismissed as withdrawn and the appeal was confined for adjudication only qua appellant- Amandeep Singh @ Aman and further proceedings before the learned trial Court were stayed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged on 29.09.2012 by the complainant-Jassa Singh, against the appellant and other co-accused before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. In the complaint, the complainant alleged that he had worked as a labourer at a brick kiln belonging to the appellant during the year 2011–12. Upon completion of the work session, he demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which was allegedly due from the appellant. In response, the appellant and other co-accused asked the complainant to hand over his work diaries, stating that the outstanding amount would be paid thereafter. The complainant further stated that he was asked to vacate the kacha hut where he was residing. He insisted that he would vacate only after receiving the due payment. He asserted that on 29.09.2012, the appellant along with other co-accused threatened him with dire consequences, including threats to his life. Although he lodged a complaint at Police Station, Hanumangarh, but no action was taken. On the same day, the appellant and other co-accused allegedly came to his hut, physically assaulted him and accused No.3 twisted his arm. The appellant reportedly pointed a pistol at the complainant’s head, hurled caste-based abuses and threatened him to vacate the premises, failing which, he would be shot dead. It was further alleged that the appellant and co-accused No.2 grabbed the hand of the complainant’s wife and tore her clothes. The appellant reportedly pointed a pistol at the complainant’s head, hurled caste-based abuses and threatened him to vacate the premises, failing which, he would be shot dead. It was further alleged that the appellant and co-accused No.2 grabbed the hand of the complainant’s wife and tore her clothes. When the complainant’s mother attempted to intervene, accused No.4-Jaspal Singh, allegedly hurled caste-based abuses at her as well. Thus, the complaint in question was filed, however, due to jurisdictional issues, the complaint was transferred to another Court. By order dated 08.10.2012, police was directed to undertake an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Pursuant to which, an FIR was registered on 12.10.2012. During the investigation, the police examined the complainant Jassa Singh, his mother Manjeet Kaur, his wife Karamjeet Kaur, neighbors Deshraj @ Dinesh Kumar, Rajendra Kumar, Gurpreet Singh, Sh. Rambhaj (ASI), and Sh. Sandeep Kumar (a friend of the appellant). After thorough investigation, the police submitted a negative final report, asserting that the appellant was not present at the scene of the incident, as confirmed by mobile tower location data. It was further stated that the allegations made by the complainant were not supported by the statements of his mother and wife. The appellant’s plea of alibi was found to be substantiated by statements of other witnesses. Moreover, no case was found to be made out against the other co-accused. Post filing of the negative final report by the police officials, the learned trial Court proceeded to take cognizance of the offences by way of order dated 15.07.2017 and, thereafter, summoned the accused. Subsequently, co-accused Jaspal Singh was discharged by way of order dated 05.10.2018, however, by way of impugned order the charges were framed against the present appellant and co- accused Navdeep Singh and Mohar Singh. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the contents of the complaint as well as the evidence available on record are taken into consideration, the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. He further submits that there is other substantial evidence to show that no incident happened on that day. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the contents of the complaint as well as the evidence available on record are taken into consideration, the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. He further submits that there is other substantial evidence to show that no incident happened on that day. Furthermore, as far as the present appellant is concerned, his presence is not even proved at the site in question, and as per the material available on record, it is clear that he was not present at the site and was rather staying in Jaipur from 16.09.2012 till 22.09.2012. He further submits that the above-mentioned fact was fortified by the mobile location of the appellant, and for that reason alone, the police officials had exonerated the appellant. He further submits that the presence of the appellant was specifically denied by Smt. Manjeet Kaur, i.e., the mother of the complainant, and even no overt act has been alleged against the appellant by the wife of the complainant, Smt. Karamjeet Kaur. He further submits that even the complainant, Jassa Singh, has not supported the contents of the FIR and has rather levelled the allegation of threatening with a pistol against Navdeep Singh and not against the present appellant. He submits that the trial Court, without considering the evidence available on record, has framed charges against the appellant for the offences in question without application of mind and in a very cursory manner, disregarding the material available on record. Therefore, he prays for discharge of the appellant while allowing the present appeal. 5. After issuance of notice, despite service, nobody appeared on behalf of respondent No.2, i.e. the complainant. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, opposes the present appeal and submits that the impugned order itself reveals that there is sufficient material available before the learned trial Court for framing of charges against the appellant and other co-accused. He further submits that at the stage of framing of charge, the concerned Court has to see the existence of a prima facie case and cannot go into the niceties of the documents placed on record by the defence. He further submits that at the stage of framing of charge, the concerned Court has to see the existence of a prima facie case and cannot go into the niceties of the documents placed on record by the defence. He submits that the evidence of the complainant- Jassa Singh, is well supported by the evidence of his mother- Smt. Manjeet Kaur and his wife-Smt. Karamjeet Kaur, which in total would clearly make out a sufficient case to proceed to frame charges against the appellant. He thus prays for dismissal of the appeal in question. 7. Having considered the arguments raised by both sides and having perused the material available on record, it is clear that, as far as the case in hand is concerned, the appeal against co-accused Navdeep Singh and Mohar Singh was already dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by way of order dated 05.07.2023. Thus, at present, the Court is considering the continuation of proceedings as well as the validity of the impugned order only qua the appellant- Amandeep Singh @ Aman. 8. As far as the stage of framing of charge, discharge is concerned, the provisions in this regard are contained under Sections 227 & 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provide as under:- “ 227. Discharge._ If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.” 228. Discharge._ If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.” 228. Framing of charge._ (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which - (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, [or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate] [Substituted by Act 25 of 2005, Section 22 for "and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate" (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).] shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to accused, and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, time and again, dealt with the powers of the Court while framing charges and the relevant considerations qua the same. In the cases of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation: 2010 9 SCC 368 , M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation: 2020 2 SCC 768, State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap: 2021 11 SCC 191 , Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors.: 2023 7 SCC 633 & State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao: 2023 17 SCC 688 , it has been held that at the stage of framing of charge, the power of weighing and sifting the evidence is limited to assess whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused, based upon the material available on record. It is further settled that when the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court would be justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. If, on the basis of material available on record, the Court is able to form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it should proceed with framing of the charges. 10. It is also well settled that at the stage of framing of charges, the probative value of the material available on record cannot be gone into. At the same time, the Court is not expected to act as a mere post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution and is required to apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record before it. Thus, if the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused, even if, fully accepted at face value fails to establish that the appellant-accused had committed the offence, then there exists no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial and the learned trial Court, at that stage should discharge the appellant-accused. 11. Applying the above-mentioned considerations to the facts of the present case, it is clear that, though initially in the complaint, the main allegation was levelled against the appellant with regard to pointing a gun at the complainant and abusing him with caste- based slurs, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant took a complete somersault and alleged the use of a pistol by Navdeep Singh. As far as the appellant is concerned, it was alleged that he assaulted the mother and wife of the complainant. The mother of the complainant, Smt. Manjeet Kaur, on the other hand, in her statement specifically alleged the use of a gun by Navdeep Singh and caste-based abuse by Navdeep Singh and Mohar Singh. She further asserted that the appellant, along with Jaspal Singh, was not even present at the site in question. Smt. Karamjeet Kaur i.e. the wife of the complainant, also alleged the use of a gun by Navdeep Singh and attributed caste-based abuse to him and Mohar Singh. She submitted that after the entire incident had occurred, the present appellant came to the site and asked the complainant to vacate the hut in question. Smt. Karamjeet Kaur i.e. the wife of the complainant, also alleged the use of a gun by Navdeep Singh and attributed caste-based abuse to him and Mohar Singh. She submitted that after the entire incident had occurred, the present appellant came to the site and asked the complainant to vacate the hut in question. She did not specify any overt act on the part of the appellant and rather stated that he came to the site only after the incident had taken place. Furthermore, other witnesses i.e. the neighbours of the complainant Deshraj @ Dinesh Kumar, Rajendra Kumar, Gurpreet Singh, and even Sh. Rambhaj, ASI, did not fortify the occurrence of the incident at all. They stated that the complainant had vacated the premises on the date in question and that they neither saw nor heard any incident, nor were they ever told by the complainant about any amount being due from the appellant. Witness Sandeep Kumar was examined and he fortified the plea of alibi of the appellant, asserting that the appellant was in Jaipur from 16.09.2012 to 22.09.2012. The police also obtained the mobile tower location of the appellant, which confirmed his presence in Jaipur on the date of the incident. Based upon this entire set of facts, the police filed a negative final report. Thus, even considering the statements of the complainant, his mother, and his wife, it is clear that the presence of the appellant was specifically denied by the mother. Though the wife Smt. Karamjeet Kaur, endorsed the presence of the appellant, it was only after the entire incident had occurred, and no overt act was attributed to the appellant by her whether to bring him under the umbrella of offenses punishable under the SC/ST Act or under any provision of the IPC. The statement of the complainant also refers to the entire allegation against co-accused Navdeep Singh and Mohar Singh, and as far as the appellant is concerned, the allegation was limited to causing hurt to his mother. As stated supra, the mother has not supported the stand of the complainant. 12. This, coupled with the statements of other witnesses, as well as the mobile tower location and the statement of Sandeep Kumar, fortifies the fact of the appellant being at Jaipur on the date when the incident occurred. As stated supra, the mother has not supported the stand of the complainant. 12. This, coupled with the statements of other witnesses, as well as the mobile tower location and the statement of Sandeep Kumar, fortifies the fact of the appellant being at Jaipur on the date when the incident occurred. Thus, even if, the entire statements and documents placed on record by the prosecution are believed to be true as they stand, the prosecution has failed to prima facie establish the necessary ingredients for the offences in question against the appellant. Neither has any overt act been attributed to the appellant by the witnesses, nor is there any allegation of the appellant using caste-based abuse in public view. Furthermore, there is substance in the plea of alibi raised by the appellant, supported by the mobile tower location and the statements of independent witnesses, all of which form part of the police investigation and are not documents supplied by the defence. 13. The learned trial Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter while framing charges against the appellant, relying solely on the fact that Smt. Karamjeet Kaur has indicated the presence of the appellant at the site in question. Mere presence, by itself, would not constitute an offence unless it is accompanied by an overt act or any common intention on the part of the appellant to commit the offence. Rather, the statement of Karamjeet Kaur specifically clarifies that the appellant came to the site only after the entire incident had occurred and asked the complainant to vacate the premises in question. That, by itself, would not constitute an offence, whether under the IPC or under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, 1989. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.10.2018 passed in Session Case No.108/2017 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hanumangarh is quashed and set aside. The appellant is discharged of all charges framed against him. 15. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed off.