The Delhi High Court set aside the ASJ's order framing charges against the petitioner for lack of reasons, directing the Trial Court to record the evidence of both sides and pass a reasoned order without commenting on the merits.
Set aside the ASJ order; remanded to the Trial Court to hear both sides and pass a detailed order.
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.
$~81
Through:
versus
THE STATE AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State. Mr. Manish Makkar, Adv. For Complainant SI Geeta Yadav, PS Mahindra Park
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Ld. counsel for the accused prays for discharge of the accused persons by submitting that there is no material on record to frame charge against them. The accused
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 10:57:57
has been falsely implicated in the present case.
On the other hand, Ld Addl PP for the State has argued that there are specific role of the accused Amit Saini i.e. from the year 2018 to till 31.12.2021, accused committed rape repeatedly upon the prosecutrix at Jahangirpuri and various other places against her will and without her consent on the false promise of marriage.
I have perused the record including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C and other material on record. There are specific allegations of the prosecutrix against the accused i.e. accused had committed rape repeatedly at various places upon the prosecutrix against her will and without her consent on the false promise of marriage.
Pertinent to mention here, at the stage of framing of charge meticulous examination for consideration of evidence and other material is not necessary and the court is not require to examine evidence minutely at that stage. The entire preposition regarding the scope of scrutiny of material at the stage of framing of charge has been summed up by Apex court in a celebrated judgment titled as Seema Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI (2007) 5 SCC 403
It is also a settled proposition of law that at the stage of charge the court is not required to examine the evidence set up by the State minutely or bit by bit so as to carry out a detailed examination of trial which is to be left at the stage of evidence itself.
Prima facie case for offence punishable u/s.376(2)(n) IPC is made out against the accused Amit Saini, Ordered accordingly.”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 10:57:57
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 Rahul
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 10:57:57
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned ASJ's order framing charges is bereft of reasons.
Whether the impugned order requires a detailed hearing by the Trial Court before passing reasons.
AMIT SAINI
THE STATE
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
