Vikram @ Andy Vs State of Hp

2025:HHC:13898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 401 of 2024 Reserved on: 2.5.2025 Date of Decision: 14.05.2025

Vikram @ Andy	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P.		...Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No. For the Appellant : Mr. Harsh, Advocate, vice Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate. : For the Respondent Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by ASI Pawan Kumar, IO, Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P.

¶7

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶8

The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 4.6.2024, passed by learned Special Judge (Family Court), Shimla (learned Trial Court), vide which the learned Trial Court ordered the framing of charges against the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 370 and 120-

¶9

B of the Indian penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of Immoral

¶10

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

1

2

2025:HHC:13898

Trafficking (Prevention) Act. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

¶15

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 370 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act. It was asserted that the police party was on patrolling duty on 12.9.2019 when they received secret information that Virender Singh was bringing girls from Punjab. He was pushing them into immoral trafficking. He paid them a few rupees and earned lakhs of rupees. The police asked Mohit and Mukesh Rolta to become decoy customers who called Virender Singh. Virender Singh sent the photographs of many girls and asked them to select any of them. They selected the photographs. Virender Singh asked for ₹1200. He also asked them to send ₹500/- as an advance to his account. ₹1000/- was transferred to his account. Room Nos. 301 and 302 were booked in Pine View Cottage Restaurant, Dhalli Bypass Road. Virender Singh demanded ₹2,000/- as an advance before handing over the girls. Virender Singh brought two girls and demanded ₹2,000/-.

¶16

3

¶17

2025:HHC:13898

¶18

Virender Singh accepted the money, and the police apprehended him with the girls. The girls revealed during the interrogation that Virender Singh persuaded them to work as sex workers. He paid some money to them and retained the rest of the money. Police arrested Virender Singh, who revealed during the inquiry that he had asked Andy to prepare a website for him. The police searched for Andy and found that the money was transferred to the account of Vikram (present petitioner) from the account of Virender Singh. The petitioner revealed during the investigation that he had prepared the website as per the directions of Virender Singh. The police seized the mobile phone and Laptop of the petitioner. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court after the completion of the investigation.

¶19

Learned Trial Court framed charges against the petitioner and the co-accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 370 and 120-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Immoral Trafficking Act, 1956.

¶20

Being aggrieved by the order framing charges, the petitioner has filed the present petition, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in framing charges against the petitioner for the commission of an offence under Section 370 of

¶21

4

¶22

2025:HHC:13898

¶23

the IPC. The police did not state anything in the charge sheet submitted by them that the petitioner was involved in trafficking. The petitioner was not in Shimla on 13.9.2019. He did not know the victims or the main accused, Virender Singh. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court framing the charges be set aside.

¶24

I have heard Mr. Harsh Sharol, vice Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

¶25

Mr. Harsh Sharol, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in framing charges against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 370 of the IPC. The police did not assert anything in the report submitted by them that the petitioner had recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received any person. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had prepared a Website as per the directions of Virender Singh, which is not an offence punishable under Section 370 of the IPC. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶26

5

¶27

2025:HHC:13898

¶28

Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner had entered into a conspiracy to procure the girls in sexual activities, and it is not necessary that the petitioner should have done any actual act of harbouring, etc. Learned Trial Court had rightly framed the charges against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶29

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶30

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 that at the time of framing of the charge the Court has to see the material collected by the prosecution to determine whether a case has been made out for proceeding with the trial or not. It was observed: -

¶31

7. It is trite law that the application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on the basis of the charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the

¶32

6

¶33

2025:HHC:13898

¶34

documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge, would suffice, and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed.

¶35

8. At the time of framing the charge and taking cognisance, the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of the charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only.

¶36

9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the chargesheet material at the stage of framing the charge, which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. is to assist the court in determining whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing to oral hearing and oral arguments only, and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the I.O.

¶37

10. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the

¶38

7

¶39

2025:HHC:13898

¶40

offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 , adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held:

¶41

“29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the probative value of the materials has to be gone into, and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini-trial at this stage.”

¶42

11. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227 Cr. P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give

¶43

8

¶44

2025:HHC:13898

¶45

any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency.

¶46

12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of the prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial.”

¶47

A perusal of the charge sheet shows that the only allegations against the petitioner are that he had prepared a website at the instance of Virender Singh. He had rented out the Website to Virender Singh at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month. No girl named the petitioner, as the petitioner who had pushed them into the sex trade. Therefore, there is a force in the submission of Mr. Harsh Sharol, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner had not recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received any person and he cannot be said to have committed

¶48

9

¶49

2025:HHC:13898

¶50

the trafficking of a person within the meaning of Section 370 of IPC.

¶51

It was submitted that the petitioner had entered into a conspiracy with the main accused, and he was rightly charged with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC. This submission is not acceptable. The charge sheet itself mentions that Virender Singh prepared the Website for the petitioner, and he was paying the rent of ₹20,000/- for the Website. He did not know the person who had created the Website but was merely transferring money to his account. Therefore, the role of the petitioner is confined to the preparation of the Website and does not involve the transportation or procuring of any girl. Hence, Section 370 of the IPC cannot be added by taking recourse to Section 120-B of the IPC.

¶52

So far as Section 4 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act is concerned, the allegations in the charge sheet clearly show that Virender Singh made money from the sex trade, which he shared with the present petitioner. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 4 are prima facie satisfied in the present case, and the charges for the commission of the aforesaid offence cannot be quashed.

¶53

10

¶54

2025:HHC:13898

¶55

Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the

¶56

order of the learned Trial Court framing the charges against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 370 of the IPC is set aside.

¶57

The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 29^th May,

¶58

2025 .

¶59

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge __May, 2025 (Chander)

Vikram @ Andy v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram @ Andy v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Virender Sharma Vs Neeraj Kumar

Samriti Vs State of Hp

Vivek Sood Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Vijay Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Joginder Singh Chauhan Vs Ramesh Chauhan

Harmandeep Singh Vs State of Hp