ORDER : 1. All these revision petitions arise out of the same order, hence, same are being decided together by this common order. 2. These criminal revision petitions have been preferred by the accused-petitioners under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa (for short, the ‘learned trial Court’) in Session Case No. 17/2022, State Vs. Shivshankar @ Balya & Ors., whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the accused petitioners under section 227 CrPC and charges were framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 384/149, 388/149, 306/149 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Rajasthan Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property)Act, 2008 (hereinafter is referred to as 'Act of 2008'). 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of information furnished by Dr. Sunit Upadhyay, an F.I.R. No.157/2022 dated 29.03.2022 was registered at Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 384 & 388 of IPC. It is alleged in the F.I.R. by the informant Dr. Suneet Upadhyay that at around 11.30 A.M., his wife Dr. Archana Sharma committed suicide by hanging at his house and a day prior, due to death of a patient in the Anand Hospital, some people by doing politics on the death of the patient, organized a protest at Anand Hospital and pressurized the administration to lodge an F.I.R. of murder and in this incident the main role was of Shiv Shankar @ Balya Joshi, who earlier also threatened them, for which an F.I.R. was also lodged against him but due to inaction, the same encouraged him. It was further stated by Dr. Suneet Upadhyay that Shiv Shankar @ Balya Joshi was indulged in protest; he abused his father and the same was not bearable by his wife, who was the best Surgeon but she was worried that Shiv Shankar would send her to jail, whereas she was having no fault and she also said that if the patient died without fault of doctor then what a doctor can do and in the morning the newspaper namely; 'Rajasthan Patrika' did not publish her version and even the media persons were also pressurizing in such matter just for their commission. It is further alleged that the family folks of the patient was completely satisfied and took the deceased to the house and when the preparation for funeral was going on then Balya Joshi brought the body at hospital and gathered the crowd, as he wanted to lodge the F.I.R. of murder. They also lodged the report earlier against Balya Joshi and Reporter Mahesh but no action was taken against them and such kind of people make the life of the doctors hell and prayed to register the case of murder. 4. After investigation, the Police submitted the charge- sheet against the accused petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 306, 384 & 388 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 2008. 5. The Investigating Agency while submitting the charge-sheet against the accused namely; Shivshankar Sharma @ Balya, Joshi, Balram Bairwa, Ram Manohar Bairwa, Babulal Meena, Harkesh Shahpura, Ramkhiladi Bairwa, Jitendra Kumar Gothwal, Harkesh Matlana, Laluram Bairwa, Bhom Singh Bairwa kept the pending the investigation under the provisions of section 173(8) CrPC so as to collect the evidence in the matter. 6. After taking cognizance, the learned trial Court vide order dated 09.09.2022 framed the charges against the accused petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 384/149, 388/149 and 306/149 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 2008, to which, they denied and opted for trial. 7. Even after framing of the charges, the Investigating Agency continued the investigation in view of the provisions of section 173(8) CrPC. The Investigating Agency thereafter on collecting certain additional evidence, submitted the supplementary conclusion report observing that no involvement of the accused petitioner- Jitendra Kumar Gothwal is found in the alleged offence. The supplementary charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Agency before the trial court and the copy of the supplementary charge-sheet has been placed on record before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor on 18.01.2025 in view of the directions given by this Court on 10.01.2025. 8. The accused petitioners aggrieved with the order of framing charges, have preferred the instant criminal revision petitions before this Court. 9. Learned counsels appearing for the accused- petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned trial Court is unreasonable, erroneous and illegal as same having no sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused petitioners. 8. The accused petitioners aggrieved with the order of framing charges, have preferred the instant criminal revision petitions before this Court. 9. Learned counsels appearing for the accused- petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned trial Court is unreasonable, erroneous and illegal as same having no sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused petitioners. The impugned order passed by the trial court by which charges have been framed against the accused petitioners is against weight of evidence. Counsels further submitted that it is the settled law that there cannot be an order of charge unless a statement of fact is there and without being so, the learned trial court erroneously passed the order of framing the charges. It is further submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and cannot be legally sustained for the reason that even a cursory look at the material placed on record, reveals incontrovertible that that there was not even remotely any ground for presuming that the petitioners have committed the alleged offence for which the learned trial Court ordered to frame the charges. Counsels also submitted that learned trial court has acted contrary to the mandate of law and has completely ignored that Chapter XVIII of CrPC ranging from section 225 to 228 which was enacted by the Legislature on the ground of providing a valuable safeguard to the accused or it can be said that this protection conferred to accused where the material available on record does not show or inspire any confidence to connect the accused with alleged crime. The Chapter was incorporated in the statute to eliminate the further harassment to the accused petitioners when the evidential material available for alleged crime falls short of minimum legal requirement. The Chapter was incorporated in the statute to eliminate the further harassment to the accused petitioners when the evidential material available for alleged crime falls short of minimum legal requirement. It is further submitted that learned trial Court did not look into the fact that even the suicide note has been taken at its face value, did not show any content of abetment as per Section 107 IPC and even otherwise even if a person being tensed committed suicide that is self act of that person which cannot be defined as an abetment and the act is due to registration of F.I.R. for offence under Section 302 IPC against the doctors as well the protest which also does not fall under the category of abetment, therefore, without being any material to prima facie substantiate the abetment, the charges were directed to be framed for the offence under Section 306 IPC, which is bad in law and have curtailed the liberty of the petitioners, without the procedure established by the law. As such the impugned order is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot be legally sustained. Counsels also submitted that without being any evidence as to unlawful assembly and where the alleged evidence shows that the crowd was gathered as the death of the patient has occurred at hospital, the same was depicted as unlawful which is out of the purview of section 141 IPC. Therefore, no charges for the offences under sections 149 and 147 IPC are made out and there is nothing that in the crowd which person has caused what specific act and in absence of that the learned trial court ordered to frame the charges for unlawful assembly, which is per se bad in the eye of law. Counsels also submitted that only on account of the crowd without any specification that how the unlawful assembly can be made and only by general allegations the charges were framed contrary to the mandate of law. Counsels also submitted that the learned trial court did not apply the binding ratio of various judicial pronouncements submitted before him. Therefore, the impugned order is hit by Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 10. Counsels also submitted that the learned trial court did not apply the binding ratio of various judicial pronouncements submitted before him. Therefore, the impugned order is hit by Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the submissions advanced by the counsels appearing for the accused petitioners and submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the learned trial court in passing the order of framing the charges against the accused petitioners. 11. Considered the submissions made at bar by the respective counsels, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the material made available to the Court. 12. Since the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 has been passed by the trial court under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, this Court is now dealing this case in the light of the provisions of CrPC. 13. Chapter XVIII of the CrPC deals with the trial of a case before a Court of Session. Section 227 CrPC says that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, 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. Section 228 CrPC deals with the provision of framing of charge which says that if, after such consideration and hearing as provided under section 227 CrPC, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. The provisions of sections 227 and 228 CrPC read 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 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 the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried." 14. In the present case, the police after completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against several persons including the petitioners observing that the allegations against the accused petitioners are found to be proved on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation, however, the police kept the investigation pending or to be continued in view of provisions of section173(8) CRPC for collecting more evidence in the matter. 15. The police after completion of further investigation which was kept pending in view of the provisions of section 173(8) CrPC, as mentioned in the original charge-sheet, after having collected the additional evidence and submitted a supplementary charge-sheet wherein it has been stated that no involvement of the accused petitioner - Jitendra Kumar Gothwal has been found in the commission of alleged offence. It is very surprising that one of the petitioner namely; Jitendra Kumar Gothwal remained in custody for a long and the charge-sheet has been filed against him observing that his involvement is there in the commission of offence and now in the supplementary charge-sheet the Investigating Agency has come to the conclusion that he is not found to be involved in the commission of alleged offence. Meaning- thereby, one of the conclusion of the police either given in the original charge-sheet or another conclusion given in the supplementary charge-sheet, is without any evidence or application of mind. 16. The conjoint reading of the provisions of sections 227 and 228 CrPC clearly speaks that either an accused is discharged or charges are framed against him only 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 impugned order of framing the charge dated 09.09.2022 has been passed by the trial court only on the basis of the record and the material submitted along-with the original charge-sheet. The investigation was kept pending under the provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC to collect the additional evidence and the police later-on submitted the supplementary charge- sheet, which is not in dispute. As per the supplementary charge-sheet, the police itself has not found one of the accused-Jitendra Kumar Gothwal in commission of alleged offence. Now additional record of the case has been placed before the learned trial court by the police itself and in such circumstances the impugned order of framing the charge is clearly a non-consideration of the record of the investigation submitted by the police in the form of supplementary charge- sheet. The provisions of CrPC clearly speak that the accused can be prosecuted for a charge framed on the basis of material collected during investigation. The impugned order of framing the charges has been passed on the basis of original charge-sheet and there is no consideration as regards the additional evidence collected during further investigation by the police which was submitted in the form of supplementary charge-sheet. 17. Section 397 read with section 401 CrPC empowers the High Court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court. 18. 17. Section 397 read with section 401 CrPC empowers the High Court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court. 18. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 of framing of the charges against the accused petitioners is without consideration of the material / additional evidence collected by the police while making further investigation under the provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC and submitted before the trial court in the form of supplementary charge-sheet having conclusions contrary to the conclusions in the original charge-sheet. 19. It was well within the knowledge of the trial court that the investigation has been kept pending for collecting the additional evidence in view of the provisions of section 173(8) CrPC and in that circumstance the trial court would have waited/ called for the final conclusion of the investigation so that while considering the case as regards discharge or framing of charge, complete material collected by the police during investigation would have been taken into consideration. The facts clearly show that the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 of framing the charges against the accused petitioners is without consideration of the additional evidence collected by the police which has been submitted before the trial court in the form of supplementary charge-sheet. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order of framing the charge dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa, in Session Case No. 17/2022, State Vs. Shivshankar @ Balya & Ors., deserves to be quashed and set aside only on the ground that complete material collected by the police during investigation including the additional evidence submitted in the form of supplementary charge-sheet has not been taken into consideration. 21. Accordingly, these criminal revision petitions are allowed and the order of framing the charges dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa in Session Case No. 17/2022, State Vs. Shivshankar @ Balya & Ors., is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of learned Addl. 21. Accordingly, these criminal revision petitions are allowed and the order of framing the charges dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa in Session Case No. 17/2022, State Vs. Shivshankar @ Balya & Ors., is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa to pass a fresh order as regards discharge or framing of the charge against the accused petitioners after taking into consideration the complete material / evidence collected during investigation and submitted in the form of original charge-sheet as well as supplementary charge-sheet. 22. Since the case pertains to the year 2022, it is expected from the trial court to pass a fresh order as early as possible so that the trial, if required, may proceed. 23. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to mention that one of the accused namely; Jitendra Kumar Gothwal was taken into custody and charge-sheet was filed against him. While filing the charge-sheet, the investigation was kept pending under section 173(8) CrPC for collecting the additional evidence and after collecting the additional evidence, the police submitted the supplementary charge- sheet wherein no involvement of the said accused namely; Jitendra Kumar Gothwal was found in commission of the alleged offences. Meaning-thereby, either the original conclusion of the investigation is without evidence or conclusion given in the supplementary charge-sheet is without evidence. The aforesaid facts clearly show that if the conclusion of the investigation given in the supplementary charge-sheet is taken into consideration as per the evidence collected during investigation then the said accused has remained in custody for no good reason. 24. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, who shall look into the matter and ensure that in future no innocent person should be sent behind the bars and shall also take necessary steps to ensure fair and impartial investigation in cases. 25. In view of the order passed in the main petitions, the stay applications and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. 26. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in other connected case files.