[2025:RJ-JP:22944] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2421/2024 Devesh Ratiya S/o Gopalsingh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 22 Krishna Colony, Kala Kuwa Alwar (Raj) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor 2. Victim, R/o ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 19/05/2025 1. Instant Criminal Appeal is preferred aggrieved from order of framing of charge dated 03.04.2024 in sessions case No. 02/2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Alwar whereby this appellant-accused was charged under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 2. Learned counsel for appellant while placing reliance upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by complainant. He further submitted that the facts of the case clearly indicate that the matter pertains to a money transaction thruough transactions and appellant-accused was arrayed as an accused to settle the score. He also submitted that the main allegation is upon Ritesh and Juber allegedly exploiting victim in committing rape with her and not upon present appellant. He also submitted that there is no [2025:RJ-JP:22944] (2 of 6) [CRLAS-2421/2024] direct or indirect relation between the appellant-accused and the victim to show that under any threat or intimidation money was transferred. He further submitted that initially the police has recommended charge-sheet under Section 406 IPC but later the matter was re-investigated and after re-investigation charge-sheet under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC was filed along with offence under Section SC/ST (POA) Act. 3. Learned counsel has further referred the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submitted that prosecurtrix (an adult female) working in a bank had firstly came in contact with Ritesh Sharma and thereafter she met allegedly Devesh Ratiya (present appellant) and due to acquaintance with present appellant she has made certain bank transaction but there is no allegation of blackmailing or torture against appellant. He further submitted that the evidence clearly shows that the act of Ritesh and Juber were different than present appellant and there is no allegation of any sexual assault by present appellant, therefore, the Trial Court has committed serious error while framing the charge against the appellant-accused without ensuring necessary ingredient to frame the charge. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 5. None present on behalf of respondent-complainant despite service. 6. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record along with report received from P.S. Sadar, District Alwar. [2025:RJ-JP:22944] (3 of 6) [CRLAS-2421/2024] 7. The facts giving rise to the instant case are that respondent No.2-complainant has filed a written complaint at P.S. Sadar, District Alwar on 08.11.2021 and on basis of this complaint FIR No. 752/21 was registered by police. The matter was investigated by police and initially police has filed a charge-sheet against Ritesh and Juber under Section 120-B, 406, 420, 376(1), 376(d) IPC and Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and against present appellant under Section 406 IPC. 8. Learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Alwar has directed for re-investigation and after the direction of re-investigation, the matter was re-investigated and police has filed a charge-sheet against Ritesh Sharma under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 376(d) IPC and Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and against Juber Khan under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 376(d), 377 IPC and Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act and against Devesh under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The Trial Court after considering the submission of learned counsels for the parties has directed to frame charge against all three accused but only Devesh has challenged the framing of charge. 9. A perusal of complaint filed by an adult victim who is working as Assistant Manager in UCO Bank, Baswa, District Dausa has stated that she was working at UCO Bank, Bhagat Singh Circle, Alwar, she came in contact with Ritesh Sharma who introduced himself as Recovering Officer, IDBI Bank and later she had developed and maintained relations with him, who introduced to Devesh Ratiya. Present appellant Devesh Ratiya has introduced [2025:RJ-JP:22944] (4 of 6) [CRLAS-2421/2024] himself as partner in several business and also posed himself as hailing from affluent family. Later Devesh Raiya has asked money from her and on request, victim has transferred certain money as loan. The victim was sexually assaulted by Ritesh and Juber Khan. The victim has alleged that she was terrorized, intimidated and sexually exploited. The victim was examined under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she alleged in same manner. The allegations were further verified from other evidence collected by police and ultimately a charge-sheet was filed. 10. The principles of law at the stage of charge were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. :(1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 398. It was held that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie case whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. The test to determine a prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. [2025:RJ-JP:22944] (5 of 6) [CRLAS-2421/2024] 11. Again in case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering several judgments on the issue in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has held that the trial court while dealing with an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. 12. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : (2021) 11 SCC 191 and relied upon in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023 INSC 555), wherein it was held that at the stage of framing of charge and/or considering discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. A defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and / or at the stage of discharge application. 13. Having considered the principle of law applicable at the stage of consideration of charge, I am of the considered view that at this stage it is not possible for the Court to hold a mini-trial for consideration of allegation on merits. The court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to constitute an offence or [2025:RJ-JP:22944] (6 of 6) [CRLAS-2421/2024] not. Herein, this case the victim has made allegations not only in in her complaint but also in her statement and these were further corroborated by the material collected by police, therefore, there is sufficient ground to proceed against the appellant-accused. We cannot presume that banking transaction or financial transaction between victim was only due to a friendship or acquaintance. To prove facts evidence is required and same can be recorded after framing the charge, therefore, the appeal sans merits and liable to be dismissed. 14. In view of discussions made herein-above, S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2421/2024 stand dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /133-S