The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a revision petition seeking quashing of an order framing charges under IPC Sections 506 and 376(2). The court held that at the stage of framing charges, evidence need not be weighed, and the impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 474 of 2018
Order reserved on : 11/09/2019 Order Delivered on: 10/12/2019
----Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State: Shri B.L. Sahu, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V Order
10/12/2019
2
the police station, Chhal, alleging therein that in the year 2008 the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix many times against her wishes and also threatened her for dire consequences. Further allegation is that when she was posted as Teacher in Ekal Vidyalay at village Chuhkimala and used to go Chhal for meeting, at the relevant time, the applicant used to come there and commit sexual intercourse with her, thereafter, in the year 2009, she married to one Kamal Kishore Patel and residing at village Govindpur, District Janjgir-Champa. On the basis of this complaint, the crime No.95/2017 was registered against him and, after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant before the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who in turn, framed charges under Sections 376(2) and 506 IPC. Hence, this revision petition by the applicant. 03. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no incriminating material against the applicant and no case under Sections 376 (2) and 506 IPC is made out. The order of framing of charges against the applicant is against the settled principles of law. He further submits that the basic ingredients of Sections 376(2) and 506 IPC is completely missing in this case. He also submits that even if it is considered and accepted the entire material on record on its face value, prima-facie no case under Section 376(2) and 506 IPC is made out against the applicant. There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant in any manner committed
3
rape with prosecutrix, therefore, the offence as alleged is not applicable against him. It is next submitted that the trial Court has not considered the fact that there is delay of about 8 years in lodging the FIR and the prosecutrix herself has not revealed the incident to anyone. At the stage of framing of charges, the Court is required to prima-facie consider whether there are sufÏcient grounds for proceeding under Section 376(2) and 506 IPC. The learned Court below, at the stage of discharging or framing of charge, is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out, if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offence. He further added that prosecution of the accused is nothing but abuse of process of law and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the order of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Ajay Singh & another Vs. State of M.P. & another reported in (2016) 1 MPWN 283 and Sunder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 ANJ 158 .
4
Admn. And Others2, has held in para 10 as under:-
“10. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. V. Anil Kumar Bhunja [(1979), 4 SCC 274] reminded the courts that at the initial stage of framing of charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The court has, therefore, to consider the question of framing the charges on general considrations of the material placed before it by the investigating agency. At this stage, the truth, veracity and effect of the judgment which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to
1 (2010) 9 SCC 368
2 (2001) 4 SCC 333
5
be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding an accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. Even on the basis of strong suspicion founded on materials before it, the court can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that event be justified in framing the charges against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by them. Relying upon its earlier judgments in Ramesh Singh and Anil Kumar Bhunja cases this Court again in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn.[(1996) 9 SCC 766] reiterated ; (SCC pp.76970, para 9).
“9. Considerations which should weigh with the Sessions Court at this stage have been well designed by Parliament through Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') which reads thus:
'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 sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.'
Section 228 contemplates the stage after the case survives the stage envisaged in the former section. When the court is of opinion that there is ground to presume that the accused has committed an offence the procedure laid down therein has to be adopted. When those two sections are put in juxtaposition with
6
each other the test to be adopted becomes discernible: Is there sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the accused? It is axiomatic that the standard of proof normally adhered to at the final stage is not to be applied at the stage where the scope of consideration is where there is 'sufÏcient ground for proceeding'.”
3 (2001) 9 SCC 631
7
arriving at a conclusion as to whether the prosecution was able to bring home the charge against the accused or not would arise only after all the evidences are brought on records at the trial.
8
judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matters of Sajjan Kumar (Supra), Om Wati (Supra) and Munna Devi (supra) , the revision is liable to and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE
Pekde
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision against the order framing charges under Sections 506 IPC and Section 376(2) IPC is sustainable given the delay in lodging the FIR.
Whether the High Court can quash the framing of charges on the ground that the accusation was not made on a prima-facie basis.
Whether the law requires examination of evidence at the stage of framing of charges despite the delay in lodging the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Singh & another Vs. State of M.P. & anotherReferred¶03
(2016) 1 MPWN 283
Sunder Singh Vs. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶03
(2014) 2 ANJ 158
Sajjan Kumar V. C.B.I.Explained¶06
Sajjan Kumar V. C.B.I. (2010) 9 SCC 368 · Who else cites this
Om Wati (Smt) and Another V. State, Through Delhi Admn. And OthersExplained¶06
Om Wati (Smt) and Another V. State, Through Delhi Admn. (2001) 4 SCC 333 · Who else cites this
Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. V. Anil Kumar BhunjaExplained¶06
Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. V. Anil Kumar Bhunja [(1979), 4 SCC 274] · Who else cites this
Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn.Explained¶06
Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn. [(1996) 9 SCC 766] · Who else cites this
Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and AnotherExplained¶06
Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (2001) 9 SCC 631 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manoj Kumar Patel
State of Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
