Hema Kharayat and Ors. ......Revisionists State of Uttarakhand & Anr. … v. Presence

2. The allegations in the FIR indicate that on 10.07.2024, during the distribution of government relief material following a natural disaster, a dispute arose between the complainant, who is the elected Gram Pradhan and belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, and the Revisionists. It is alleged that the Revisionists, along with others, restrained the complainant, assaulted her, used caste-based abusive language, obstructed her from performing her official duties, threatened her, and Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2025, Hema Kharayat and or., Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another- 1 Ashish Naithani J. garlanded her with shoes in the presence of several villagers. It is further alleged that the incident took place in an open area accessible to the public.

3. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the complainant and other villagers under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The complainant reiterated the allegations and specifically named the Revisionists, attributing individual and collective acts of assault, intimidation, caste-based insult and obstruction of duty. Several witnesses also supported the broad sequence of events and affirmed the complainant’s version. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the Revisionists under the aforementioned provisions, and the learned court below proceeded to frame charges.

4. Learned counsel for the Revisionists submitted that the allegations are false, politically motivated and stem from local rivalry within the village. It was argued that the FIR contains omnibus allegations and no specific overt act is attributed to each Revisionist. According to learned counsel, the charge-sheet merely reproduces the version of the complainant without independent corroboration, and the Investigation Officer has mechanically submitted the police report.

5. It was further contended that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly those under the SC/ST Act, are not made out. Learned counsel submitted that the incident did not occur within “public view” as required under Section 3 sub-section 1 clause (r) and clause (s) of the Act. It was argued that even if the prosecution material is taken at its highest value, it discloses, at best, a village-level dispute having no caste-related motive. On this premise, learned counsel submitted that the learned trial court has erred in framing charges without a proper appreciation of the law and the material on record. Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2025, Hema Kharayat and or., Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another- 2 Ashish Naithani J.

6. Learned counsel for the Revisionists emphasised that the Revisional Court is empowered to prevent abuse of process, and where the allegations are inherently improbable or wholly omnibus, continuation of the trial would amount to harassment. It was further submitted that the charge order reflects no application of mind and proceeds merely on the existence of the FIR and statements.

7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the Revision and submitted that the scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing charges is narrow and circumscribed. It was contended that the Court is required only to assess whether the material collected during the investigation, when taken at its face value, gives rise to a grave suspicion regarding the commission of the offences alleged.

8. According to learned A.G.A., the complainant has specifically named the Revisionists and described their individual roles. The statements recorded during the investigation broadly support the complainant’s version, and the incident is described as having occurred in the presence of villagers, thereby prima facie satisfying the “public view” requirement. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the arguments relating to political rivalry, exaggeration, or false implication constitute matters of defence, which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of framing charges.

9. It was lastly submitted impugned order reflects due consideration of the material on record and does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The scope of scrutiny in a Criminal Revision directed against an order framing a charge is deliberately narrow. The Court does not undertake a meticulous evaluation of evidence, nor does it adjudicate Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2025, Hema Kharayat and or., Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another- 3 Ashish Naithani J. upon the credibility of witnesses or the possible defences that may ultimately emerge during trial. The revisional court is required only to consider whether the material collected during the investigation, if accepted in its entirety and without embellishment, discloses the existence of a prima facie case or at least such a grave suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused as would justify a full- fledged trial. It is equally settled that where two views are possible and the trial court has adopted one which is reasonably supported by material on record, the revisional court ordinarily ought not to substitute its own view.

12. In the present case, the allegations contained in the FIR are detailed, categorical and specifically name each of the Revisionists. The complainant, who is the elected Gram Pradhan and belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, alleges that when government relief material was to be distributed following a natural disaster, she was confronted, abused, restrained, assaulted and humiliated publicly. The allegation of being garlanded with shoes in the presence of villagers, coupled with the alleged use of caste-indicative expressions, if taken at their face value, clearly disclose ingredients of multiple offences, including those under the SC/ST Act.

13. The complainant’s statements under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita reiterate the allegations in material particulars. Her account is not a mere broad accusation against unnamed persons; it assigns roles, identifies participants and is supported, at least in broad terms, by statements of accompanying witnesses. At this stage of proceedings, such material suffices to form a prima facie view.

14. The argument that the allegations are politically motivated, or arise out of village-level rivalry, may constitute a plausible defence. Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2025, Hema Kharayat and or., Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another- 4 Ashish Naithani J. However, the law consistently emphasises that such defences must be established through evidence and cannot be examined at the threshold. For the purpose of framing charges, the Court does not test political motivations, social rivalries or interpersonal animus unless the allegations on the face of the record are inherently absurd or demonstrably impossible.

15. That is not the situation here. On the contrary, the allegations describe a coherent factual sequence, supported by investigative material, which cannot be discarded in revisional jurisdiction merely on the assertion of mala fides.

16. Learned counsel for the Revisionists has further urged that the essential ingredient of “public view” under Section 3 sub-section 1 clauses (r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act is not satisfied. However, the material on record indicates that the alleged acts occurred at a public place where a sizable number of villagers were present. The very description of the setting,distribution of government relief material, arrival of the Gram Pradhan, and gathering of villagersprima facie suggest accessibility and visibility to members of the public.

17. Whether the presence of persons unconnected with complainant can be established through evidence is a matter for trial. At this stage, the record does not reveal any such foundational deficiency that would justify striking down the charge altogether.

18. The contention that the charges are omnibus and lack individual attribution is also not borne out from the record. While the prosecution narrative attributes collective conduct to the accused as a group, it also describes specific roles such as obstructing the complainant, assisting others in garlanding her with shoes, using caste-related expressions, and restraining her from performing official duties. In cases involving Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2025, Hema Kharayat and or., Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another- 5 Ashish Naithani J. mob conduct or collective intimidation, the law does not require the prosecution to demonstrate with mathematical precision the isolated conduct of each participant before the trial has even commenced. Group actions, by their nature, frequently involve overlapping roles, and the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence relating to individual acts must be tested after witnesses enter the box.

19. The impugned charge order demonstrates that the learned trial court has considered the FIR, statements and the charge-sheet in arriving at its satisfaction that prima facie material exists for proceeding against the accused. The order cannot be said to suffer from non-application of mind, arbitrariness or perversity. The Revisional Court does not act as an appellate authority over the trial court’s discretion at this stage. Interference is warranted only where the charge is manifestly groundless, or the material is so deficient that no reasonable court could have proceeded further. The present case does not fall into that category.

20. On an overall consideration of the allegations, the statements and the statutory framework governing charge-framing, this Court finds that the prosecution material, taken at its face value, discloses grave suspicion against the Revisionists. Whether the prosecution ultimately proves its case is a matter for trial. At this stage, the Revisionists have not demonstrated any exceptional circumstance warranting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction to interdict the trial or set aside the order framing charge. ORDER Having considered the material on record and the submissions addressed on behalf of the parties, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2025, Hema Kharayat and or., Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another- 6 Ashish Naithani J. passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act), Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2024. The allegations, taken at their face value, disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences invoked and give rise to grave suspicion justifying the framing of charges. No ground is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision fails and is dismissed. Dated:25.11.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2025, Hema Kharayat and or., Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another- 7 Ashish Naithani J.