Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.227, 228 – Scope of exercise of power at the stage of framing of charge – In the instant case, appellant-original accused was facing trial for offences under ss.354, 354A, 354B, 341, 342, 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(k), IPC – Charge sheet filed by Investigating officer – Sessions Judge ordered charges to be framed against the appellant for offences under the aforesaid sections – Appellant filed revision application before the High Court – High Court dismissed the revision application and refused to discharge the appellant of charged offences – Hence the appeal – Discharge was sought on the ground that in the present case, both, the informant and the Investigating Officer were same and, therefore, entire criminal proceedings were vitiated – Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018)
17 SCC 627 – Held: The submissions made on behalf of the appellant are on merits and are required to be dealt with and considered at an appropriate stage during the course of trial – Some of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant on the conduct of the victim/prosecutrix also are required to be dealt with and considered at an appropriate stage during trial – The same are not to be considered at the stage of framing of the charge – There is ample material against the appellant and, therefore, trial court rightly framed charge against him and the same is rightly confirmed by High Court – No interference called for – Further held that appellant shall not be discharged on the ground that in the present case, both, the informant and the Investigating Officer are same, as decision of this Court in Mohan Lal case shall not be applicable as in the present case proceedings were initiated prior to the decision in Mohan Lal case – No interference called for – Trial court directed to conclude the trial at the earliest – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.354, 354A, 354B, 341, 342, 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(k) – Crime against women.
Dismissing the appeal and disposing of the M.A., the Court HELD : 1. The decision in the case of Mohan Lal shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand as criminal prosecution has been initiated in the instant case much prior to the decision in the case of the Mohan Lal. Therefore, the appellant cannot be discharged at this stage on the said ground mainly that as the Investigating Officer and the complainant/informant are the same the trial is vitiated, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal. Even the decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh, relied upon by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused, also shall not be of much assistance to the appellant at this stage. In the case of Bhagwan Singh and after the trial this Court held that as the complainant herself was the Investigating Officer, the case of the prosecution would not be free from doubt. It was the case after trial and not at the stage of framing of the charge. Where the complainant himself had conducted the investigation, such aspect of the matter can certainly be given due weightage while assessing the evidence on record but it would be completely a different thing to say that the trial itself would be vitiated for such infraction. Therefore, the said ground is not required to be considered at this stage, namely, at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the different considerations would weigh. [Para 8.2] [685-A-H]
2. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant on merits are required to be dealt with and considered at an appropriate stage during the course of the trial. Some of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant on the conduct of the victim/prosecutrix also are required to be dealt with and considered at an appropriate stage during the trial. The same are not required to be considered at this stage of framing of the charge. There is more than a prima facie case against the accused for which he is required to be tried. There is sufficient ample material against the accused and therefore the trial court has rightly framed the charge against the accused and the same is rightly confirmed by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for. [Para 9.5] [694-A-E]
Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC
15 ; Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC
627 : [2018] 9 SCR 1006 – held inapplicable.
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC
4 : [1979] 2 SCR 229 ; State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 : [1978] 1 SCR 257 ; Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia (1989) 1 SCC 715 : [1989] 1 SCR 560 ; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 : [2012] 7 SCR 988 ; Ajay Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017) 3 SCC 330 : [2017] 1 SCR 286 ; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh
Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya (1990) 4 SCC
76 : [1990] 3 SCR 633 ; State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan (2014) 11 SCC 709 : [2014] 1 SCR 135 ; State v. S. Selvi (2018) 13 SCC 455 ; Mauvin Godinho v. State of Goa (2018) 3 SCC 358 : [2018] 1 SCR 821 ; Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2019) SCC
OnLine SC 170 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.