$~105 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010243512022 + CRL.REV.P. 397/2022 GAURAV SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anubhav Singh, Mr. Sachin Lohia, Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advs. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State. SI Abhay Bhati, P.S.- Laxmi Nagar. Mr. Roshan Kumar, Adv. for complainant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.08.2026 1. The petitioner/revisionist has moved the present revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) against the order dated 01.04.2021 by ASJ (SFTC), Karkardooma District Court, New Delhi (“Impugned Order”), wherein, the trial Court directed the framing of charges in connection with FIR No. 322/ 15 registered at PS Shakarpur, East, Delhi. 2. As per the FIR, it is alleged that the prosecutrix met the petitioner when she visited the office of a share trading company ‘Bonanza’, at Daryaganj, New Delhi, seeking employment, where the revisionist was also employed and they developed a friendly relationship. The prosecutrix, 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 20/08/2026 at 11:04:11 thereafter revealed about her engagement. It was alleged that the petitioner and his siblings forwarded the prosecutrix’s photographs to her fiancé with the intention of maligning her image, and further put her in fear of death by compelling her to commit suicide, attempted to extort Rs. 20,00,000/- and threatened to publish her images. It is also alleged that the petitioner called the prosecutrix's fiancé following which the proposed marriage of the prosecutrix was called off. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Sajjan Kumar V s. Central Bureau of Investigation1and Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State of Maharashtra2. He contends that in the absence of a specific allegation against the applicant, the charge in question is not made out. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the prosecutrix submits that, as of now, the prosecutrix is not pursuing the aforesaid FIR. Therefore, this aspect can be considered by the concerned Court. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Yadav v. Satish & Others3, has explained the standard of compliance required in the framing of a charge. The relevant para nos. 14.1- 14.3 is extracted as under: - “14.1. The purpose of framing a charge in a criminal trial is to provide the accused with clear and precise notice of the accusation so as to enable him to effectively prepare and present his defence. Sections 211 to 213 Cr.P.C. make it clear that a charge must disclose the nature of the offence and the essential particulars necessary to inform the accused of the case he is required to meet. The fundamental object of a charge is thus one of notice and not a mere ritualistic formality. Section 228 Cr.P.C. further contemplates that upon consideration of the record and hearing the parties, the Court shall frame a charge in writing. 1 (2010) 9 SCC 368. 2 (2008) 10 SCC 394. 3 2026 INSC 301. 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 20/08/2026 at 11:04:11 14.2. The Constitution Bench in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), observed that criminal procedure is intended to advance the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by technicalities. It was further held that where there is substantial compliance with the requirements of law and the accused has had a fair trial with full knowledge of the case against him, mere 18 procedural errors or omissions would not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is demonstrated. The following paragraph is pertinent: ‘5. Before we proceed to set out our answer and examine the provisions of the Code, we will pause to observe that the Code is a code of procedure and, like all procedural laws, is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of endless technicalities. The object of the Code is to ensure that an accused person gets a full and fair trial along certain well established and well-understood lines that accord with our notions of natural justice. If he does, if he is tried by a competent court, if he is told and clearly understands the nature of the offence for which he is being tried, if the case against him is fully and fairly explained to him and he is afforded a full and fair opportunity of defending himself, then, provided there is substantial compliance with the outward forms of the law, mere mistakes in procedure, mere inconsequential errors and omissions in the trial are regarded as venal by the Code and the trial is not vitiated unless the accused can show substantial prejudice. That, broadly speaking, is the basic principle on which the Code is based.’ 14.3. The settled position of law is that the validity of a charge must be tested on whether the accused understood the case against him and was afforded a fair opportunity to defend himself. In Main Pal v. State of Haryana7 , this Court explained that the object of framing a charge is to give the accused a clear idea of the accusations and the essential facts he must meet, and that courts must look to the substance rather than technicalities while assessing prejudice. The following paragraph is apposite: ‘17. The following principles relating to Sections 212, 215 and 464 of the Code, relevant to this case, become evident from the said enunciations: (i)The object of framing a charge is to enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for and of the essential facts that he has to meet. The charge must also contain the particulars of date, time, place and person 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 20/08/2026 at 11:04:11 against whom the offence was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (ii)The accused is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy, the exact nature of the charge against him, and unless he has such knowledge, his defence will be prejudiced. Where an accused is charged with having committed offence against one person but on the evidence led, he is convicted for committing offence against another person, without a charge being framed in respect of it, the accused will be prejudiced, resulting in a failure of justice. But there will be no prejudice or failure of justice where there was an error in the charge and the accused was aware of the error. Such knowledge can be inferred from the defence, that is, if the defence of the accused showed that he was defending himself against the real and actual charge and not the erroneous charge. (iii)In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to the technicalities, and their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly, and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself.’ ” [Emphasis Supplied] 6. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the impugned order and the order on charges stands set aside. There does not seem to be adequate consideration by the trial Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the present matter is remanded back to the concerned Court. The trial Court to consider all these submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein in accordance with law. 8. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 9. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse in case 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 20/08/2026 at 11:04:11 the grievance is not fully mitigated. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 17, 2026 ab 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 20/08/2026 at 11:04:11