$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010273012022 + CRL.REV.P. 453/2022 and CRL.M.A. 13911/2022 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State versus MOHSIN .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 04.08.2026 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs: - “a) Quash and set-aside the order dated 14.02.2022 whereby the Respondent has been discharged under section 376 of the IPC in ELR. No. 334/20, registered at the P.S. Seema Puri and b) Pass any other or further order or orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interests of justice.” 2. Heard learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 3. The Court has also perused the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by ASJ (SFTC), East/ KKD Courts, Delhi. The learned Trial Court has rendered categorical finding vide paragraph no.14 thereof, which is extracted as under: - “14. In view of aforesaid facts and the judgments, I held that prima facie This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:21:36 there is no evidence which creates grave suspicious that by obtaining under misconception of fact that he will marry her or she gave her consent under misconception believing accused promise of marriage or accused has made physical relations with the prosecutrix either against her will and consent and thus raped her, hence, I discharge the accused from the present case.” 4. The Supreme Court in Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. The State of West Bengal1 has explained the scope of the High Court when an accused has been discharged by the Trial Court. The relevant para 15 is extracted as under:- “15. This Court has recently in Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of UP (2024) 10 SCC 651, cited with approval earlier decisions of this Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715; P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398; and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 as under: - *** 22. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala [P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488], after extracting Section 227CrPC, this Court in paras 10 and 11 held thus: (SCC pp. 401-402) 10. … If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. *** (Emphasis supplied) 1 2025 INSC 1373. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:21:36 5. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Pratima Behera,2 the relevant para 14 is extracted as under: “14. …We have no hesitation to hold that such meticulous consideration for presence or absence of clinching material is beyond the scope of power of the Court while considering the question of discharge under Section 239, Cr. P.C. as also while considering the question of quashing of charge framed by the Trial Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. It is to be noted that at that stage the materials collected by the prosecution would not mature into evidence and therefore, beyond the question of existence or otherwise prima facie case based on materials, the question whether they are clinching or not could not be gone into.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Considering Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba(Supra) as well as Pratima Behera(Supra) and the categorical findings rendered by the Trial Court, this Court does not find any reason to interfere into the said order. 7. Accordingly, this instant revision fails, and is, hereby dismissed. 8. The pending application also stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 4, 2026 Nc 2 2024 INSC 1010. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:21:36