Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46403 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 763 of 2025 1 - Manish Soni S/o Vinod Soni Aged About 36 Years Holding No. 23, P.N.B. Colony, Sonari, Ps- Sonari, District- Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) - 831011 2 - Vinod Soni S/o Late Ganesh Soni Aged About 62 Years Holding No. 23, P.N.B Colony, Sonari, Ps-Sonari, District - Jamshedpur (Jharkhand)- 831011 3 - Lalita Devi W/o Vindo Soni Aged About 55 Years R/o Holding No. 23, P.N.B Colony, Sonari, Ps-Sonari, District - Jamshedpur (Jharkhand)- 831011 4 - Anish Soni S/o Vinod Soni Aged About 34 Years R/o Holding No. 24/1, Dev Nagar, Gandhi Marg, Baradwari, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand - 831001. 5 - Priya Soni D/o Vinod Soni Aged About 22 Years Presently Residing At B- 1/46, Ashok Vihar, Phase Ii, New Delhi - 11052, Since Augush, 2017. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Jashpur, Distt.- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent ____________________________________________________________ --- Applicants For Applicants For Respondent/State For Objector/Complainant : : :
Legal Reasoning
“13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.” 10. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapor (supra) has curled out some principles to be considered for proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction or inherent jurisdiction to quash the charge and held thus :- “27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 6 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 11. In the case at hand, the allegation is that by suppressing material fact of earlier existing marriage of applicant No.1, applicant No.1 performed marriage with complainant and none of applicants have disclosed the fact of subsisting marriage of applicant with some other woman. 12. Section 90 of I.P.C. deals with consent known to be given under fear or misconception, which envisages that a consent is not a such consent as intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear or injury or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has a reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception. 13. For the aforementioned discussions and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned 7 order framing charge dated 07.05.2025, passed in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2025 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.). 14. Accordingly, the revision is devoid of merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that learned trial Court should not be influenced by any of the observation made by this Court in this order as it is only with regard to considering the prayer made in this application challenging order of framing charge. Trial Court shall decide the criminal case based on evidence which is to be brought before it by respective parties. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram
Arguments
Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manoj K. Sinha & Mr. Anmol Verma, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 10/09/2025 BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.16 11:13:14 +0530 1. Applicants have filed this revision challenging the order of framing charge dated 07.05.2025 in Sessions Trial No.9 of 2025 against them 2 for alleged commission of offence U/s. 420 read with Section 34 and Section 376 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for applicants would submit that complainant after marriage with Manish Soni/applicant No.1 resided with him for considerable period and from their wedlock a child was born, who at present is residing with complainant. Due to some dispute between the parties, complainant left her in-laws house and thereafter went to her parents house and lodged a report in concerned police station. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet and thereafter, learned trial Court has framed charges against applicants as mentioned in Annexure P-1. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for applicants that once the complainant had joined company of applicant No.1 after marriage and came to her matrimonial home, the offence as provided U/s. 376 of I.P.C. would not be attracted. Physical relation between applicant and complainant is consensual because of marital relation between the two. This very aspect has been overlooked by learned trial Court. He also relied on the contents of FIR to support his submission, pointing out that report itself states that marriage between complainant and applicant No. 1 took place on 18.01.2019 in accordance with Hindu ritual. He pointed that complainant herself has moved an application U/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of competent jurisdiction seeking maintenance showing herself to be wife of applicant No.1. From the facts as narrated in the FIR as also forming part of charge sheet it is clear that dispute between complainant and her in-laws is matrimonial dispute, therefore, it will not attract the provision U/s. 376 of I.P.C.. He 3 also submits that applicant No.1/husband of complainant is still ready to live with complainant, therefore, he has also filed an application U/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restoration of conjugal rights. In the aforementioned facts of the case framing of charges U/s. 376 read with Section 109 of I.PC. against applicants is per-se illegal. 4. Learned counsel for State-respondent supports the order of framing charge and would submit that learned trial Court upon appreciation of material available on record in the charge-sheet has framed the charges against applicants, which does not call for any interference. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of objector/wife would oppose the submission of learned counsel for applicants and would submit that according to allegation made in FIR, applicants by suppressing the fact of existing marriage of applicant No.1 with some other woman, has brought proposal of marriage with complainant. Said proposal was accepted by parents of complainant and accordingly marriage took place, he however, submits that though marriage was consented between two families, however, it is under misconception of facts because applicants at no point of time have disclosed the subsisting first marriage of applicant No.1. Therefore, relationship developed between applicant No.1 and complainant cannot be said to be consensual relationship between them. He contended that not only applicant No.1 but all the family members have suppressed this fact before they entered into relationship. He next contended that at the stage of framing of charge, allegation and other material available in charge-sheet is to be considered and it is to be seen whether there is prima-facie material available for framing of 4 charges or not. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction against charge, the Court can only consider whether there is any patent illegality in the impugned order or not, marshaling of evidence can be done only at the end by learned trial Court after evidence is brought on record by respective parties in trial. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 1, in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu, reported in AIR 2017 SC 796 and in case of Raghav Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:146503. I have heard learned counsel for parties. Before proceeding further I find it appropriate to have a glance over the law with regard to interference by High Court at the state of framing of charge. 6. 7. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Fatehkaran Mehdu (supra) has observed that scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction U/s. 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained. 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 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 scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. 5 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has considered the scope of Section 397 and explained in para-13 thus :