Raza Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order dated 12th February, 2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles governing the disposal of a discharge application. It is contended that the first information report has been lodged on false and frivolous allegations. The prosecutrix is 27 years of age and the physical relations established between the appellant and the prosecutrix is consensual. The real fact is that the prosecutrix and her brother used to come to his Gym for exercise and when the appellant demanded the fee of Gym, she has engineered the present criminal case implicating him on false grounds. There is discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution. Despite these material discrepancies, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet in a mechanical manner, and the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate these infirmities while rejecting the discharge application.

It is also submitted that no prima facie case under the provisions of the SC/ST Act is made out, as the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are completely absent. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law, and the impugned order rejecting the discharge application is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer made in the instant appeal and supported the impugned order. It is submitted that prima facie case is made out against the appellant. At this stage only prima facie case has to be seen. The version as unfolded in the first information report is fully consistent with the statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. and the same has also been supported by mother, father and brother of the prosecution in their statements recorded under Section 180 Cr.P.C. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has placed reliance upon a photo copy of the first information report lodged by the prosecutrix against the appellant which has been registered as Case Crime No. 0793 of 2025 under Sections 352, 351 (2) and 351 (3) B.N.S. wherein it has been alleged that when the marriage of prosusecutrix has been fixed with some other person, the appellant has met with the Mediator of the said marriage and by showing the obscene photographs and videos of prosecutrix with appellant to him, he got the said marriage broken. It is then stated that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants relate to disputed questions of 3 CRLA No. 4232 of 2026 fact and would require appreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that at the stage of consideration of discharge, only a prima facie case is to be seen, and the court concerned is not expected to conduct a mini trial.

I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record including the impugned order.

From perusal of the records, this Court finds that in the first information report as well as in the statements recorded under Section 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. the prosusecutrix is consistent by alleging there that the appellant, by telling the prosecutrix that he belonged to the Hindu community, developed an illicit relationship with her and by making obscene photos and videos of her, forced her to change her religion and marry him. When she refused, he blackmailed her and got her marriage, which was being solemnized with someone else, broken.

While passing the impugned order rejecting the discharge application of the appellant, the trial court upon reviewing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, file, has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to frame charges against the accused Raja Khan under Sections 64 (1), 352, 351 (2), (2) and (5) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The accused committed the crime of rape by relying on the victim's free confession and obtaining her consent. In such circumstances, the offender intimidated the victim and falsely represented her. It is not necessary to thoroughly examine the evidence at this stage to determine whether the evidence available on record is sufficient for conviction. Considering the gravity of the charges leveled against the accused, it is not legally appropriate to discharge the accused at this stage.

The legal position with regard to the scope of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is well settled. In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another [(1979) 3 SCC 4], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court has to evaluate the material on record to determine whether a prima facie case exists, but it cannot act as a trial court to weigh the evidence conclusively. Similar principles have been reiterated in State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39] and Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI [(2010) 9 SCC 368], wherein it has been held that if the material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, the Court would be justified in framing charges and proceeding to trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in Palwinder Singh vs. Balwinder Singh [(2009) ACC 65 (399) (SC)] has held that at the stage of taking cognizance or considering a protest petition, the court is only required to examine whether the material available on record gives rise to a 4 CRLA No. 4232 of 2026 strong suspicion against the accused. If such strong suspicion exists, the court is justified in proceeding further. It is not permissible at this stage to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or to evaluate the defence version, as those are matters to be considered during trial.

From a perusal of the material available on record, as well as the impugned order, and the version as unfolded in the first information report, statements of the prosecutrix under Section 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., it is evident that the learned Trial Court, after considering each and every aspect of the matter, including the allegations made in the FIR, the statements of witnesses, and the nature of the accusations, has rightly rejected the application for discharge by holding that a prima facie offence is clearly made out against the appellants. As such, it cannot be said that the learned court concerned has acted without application of mind. The reasoning given by the learned court is just and proper.

In view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. May 18, 2026 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad