28 April 2022 9:41 AM GMT
The Allahabad High Court has observed that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is required to proceed on the presumption that the material produced by the prosecution is true. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the material produced does not warrant a conviction, noted the Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav.The case in brief The High...
The Allahabad High Court has observed that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is required to proceed on the presumption that the material produced by the prosecution is true.
At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the material produced does not warrant a conviction, noted the Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav.
The case in brief
The High Court was dealing with a Criminal Revision filed by one Chaman Mangla directed against the order passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mathura, whereby the application for discharge under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 376 IPC, and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
It was contended by counsel for the revisionist that the trial court had rejected the discharge application without considering the fact that the victim is a major and the allegation of physical relation between the revisionist and the victim was a consensual physical relationship, therefore, no offence under Section 376 IPC was made out.
It is further submitted that there are several contradictions between the version of the FIR and the statements of the informant said to have been recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the order has been passed illegally in a routine manner and without application of judicial mind, and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, the counsel for the victim as well as the A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that the record reveals that the revisionist had established a physical relationship with the complainant on a false promise of marriage and when he refused to marry, the prosecution had been initiated against the revisionist.
Taking into account the Apex Court's ruling in the case of State Vs S. Selvi, (2018) 13 SCC 455, the High Court noted that the SC has held that if on the basis of material on record, the Court prima facie forms an opinion that the accused may have committed the offence, it can frame charges.
"Indisputably, it is open to this Court to quash the charges framed by the trial court and discharge the accused revisionist but the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness, sufficiency of the evidence. The principle to be adopted in such cases should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed would it constitute the offence or not. It is only at the stage of the trial that truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence can be adjudged. Therefore, it will not be proper to truncate or snip the proceeding at the stage of framing of charges against the revisionist when perusal of the statement of victim said to have been recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that the revisionist made sexual intercourse with the complainant for a continuous period of two years on false pretext of marriage," the Court observed.
Against this backdrop, the Court concluded that the fact that the trial Court having considered the record of the case and evidence brought by the prosecution has formed an opinion regarding the prima facie of involvement of the revisionist in the commission of offence, the court below had rightly dismissed the argument for discharge of revisionist.
Case title - Chaman Mangla v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1066 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 213
Click here To Read/Download Order