Manendra Prasad Tiwari vs Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr.

HELD: 1. It was mainly argued before the High Court that on the date of the commission of the offence, the deceased was major and was in a relationship with the accused on her own free will and volition. The accused could not be said to have committed any offence as alleged. Surprisingly, even the State, to a certain extent, supported the submission canvassed on behalf of the accused before the High Court. What is relevant to note is that although the High Court has devoted two full paragraphs for the purpose of recording the submissions as regards the age of the deceased, yet ultimately no specific finding has been recorded in that regard by the High Court. The High Court proceeded altogether on a different footing. The High Court thought fit to discharge the accused of all the charges on the ground that there was delay in lodging the FIR and the entire case put up by the parents of the deceased was doubtful. The impugned order of the High Court is utterly incomprehensible. This Court is yet to come across a case where the High Court has thought fit to discharge an accused charged with the offence of rape on the ground of delay in the registration of the FIR. [Paras 19 & 20][189-H; 190-A-C]

2. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. [Para 21][190-D-H; 191-A-B]

3. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding. In view of the position of law as discussed above, the impugned order of the High Court could be termed as perverse and not sustainable in law. We refrain from observing anything further in regard to the exact and correct age of the deceased at the time of commission of the offence as alleged as it may cause prejudice to the parties in some manner or the other. ANR.

It is for the trial court to determine the correct age on the basis of the evidence that may be led by the prosecution as well as by the defence. One another disturbing feature of this litigation is that it is the unfortunate father of the deceased who had to come before this Court seeking justice. It was expected of the State to challenge the illegal order passed by the High Court. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book. Yet one another disturbing feature is that the trial court thought fit not to frame charge against the accused for the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC i.e. abetment to the commission of suicide. Unfortunately, no one has questioned that part of the order of the trial court declining to frame charge for the alleged offence of abetting the commission of suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. [Paras 22, 23, 28 & 29][191-B-E; 194-G-H; 195-A-C]

Amit Kapoor and Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 : [2012] 7 SCR 988; State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 : [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 189 relied on.

State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi (2000) 8 SCC 239 : [2000]

4 Suppl. SCR 270; Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 : [2009] 13 SCR 230; Thakur Ram and others v. State of Bihar (1966) Cri LJ 700 - referred to.