[2025:RJ-JP:14484] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2485/2022 Renuka Choudhary Wife Of Late Shri Mahesh Kumar, Resdent Of Ghassu, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Dr. Radheyshyam Morya Son Of Shri Bhanwar Lal Morya, Resident Of Ram Nagar, Piprali Road, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Pt. Shri Ram Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashir Gauri for Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka Mr. Mahender Meena, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/03/2025 1. Instant S.B. Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellant- accused aggrieved from framing of charge on 14.11.2022 in sessions case No. 271/2022 arising out of FIR No. 240/2022 P.S. Laxmangarh wherein learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Cases, Sikar has framed charge under Sections 384, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 2. Learned counsel for appellant-accused while referring the grounds of appeal would submitted that respondent No.2 who is a doctor has registered a false and concocted case against the appellant-accused, and with connivance of police filed a charge- sheet. He further referred the material available on record and submitted that respondent No.2 has established a physical [2025:RJ-JP:14484] (2 of 7) [CRLAS-2485/2022] relationship with present appellant and on the basis of a video she was blackmailed to continue to remain in physical relationship with complainant. He further referred the facts of the case and submitted that present appellant-accused was consecutively exploited by respondent No.2 with intention to ruin her life and when present accused has resisted the action of respondent No.2 then a false report was registered against the accused. He further referred the age of respondent No.2 and submitted that complainant doctor is a 50 year old married man and working in Government Hospital. He further submitted that it is impossible for a villager lady like present appellant to prepare a video to blackmail respondent No.2. He also submitted that from the record no recovery was made from the possession of appellant- accused. At last, he submitted that learned Trial Court has neither considered any material on record before framing a charge nor assigned a reason not to discharge accused. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent-complainant. 4. Learned counsel for complainant while relying upon complaint and statement of witnesses has submitted that the appellant-accused with intention to blackmail and ruin the life of complainant has trapped the complainant and after seducing him recorded a video and on the basis of video blackmailed him to extort money. At last, he submitted that complainant has paid lacs of rupees to appellant-accused. He also submitted that the Trial Court has not committed any error while framing the charge. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The Court is apprised that complainant [2025:RJ-JP:14484] (3 of 7) [CRLAS-2485/2022] has not been examined so far though 5 other witnesses were examined before the Trial Court after framing of charge. 6. The facts giving rise to instant criminal appeal are that respondent No.2-complainant has submitted a written report on 25.08.2022 to Superintendence of Police, Sikar and on basis of this report FIR No. 240/2022 was registered at P.S. Laxmangarh, District, Sikar under Sections 384, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC and 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(ii)(va) of SC/ST (POA), Act. During investigation, accused was arrested and a charge-sheet was filed. Learned Trial Court after considering the material on record has framed charges under Sections 384, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(ii)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 7. 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 whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. The [2025:RJ-JP:14484] (4 of 7) [CRLAS-2485/2022] test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. 8. 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 the 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. 9. 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 of application. 10. A perusal of complaint indicate that respondent No.2 came in contact with appellant-accused in the month of October, 2018 and [2025:RJ-JP:14484] (5 of 7) [CRLAS-2485/2022] instant complaint is filed in the month of August, 2022. This complaint also indicate that some of the incident were of year 2021. The complaint further indicate that last payment was allegedly made on 06.11.2021 but on basis of an alleged incident of 23.08.2022, FIR was registered on 25.08.2022. The appellant- accused in her defence at the stage of charge has and alleged that respondent No.2-complainant has sexually exploited appellant- accused and a report is also filed against complainant (respondent No.2 herein). 10. The order of the Trial Court clearly indicate that the Trial Court has referred principle of law and also the report filed by complainant. It has also referred the statement of certain witnesses but without addressing the arguments particularly about case registered by appellant-accused against the complainant has framed a charge, though, the order runs in 9 pages but mostly the facts narrated by complainant were reproduced in the order. We have gone through the statement as referred by learned Trial Court particularly of Dr. Rajender Singh, Sandeep and Girdhari Lal. None of them have witnessed any incident and deposed against accused about any incident. The police has also referred statement of Sharda Devi and Santro Devi, who are neighbors of complainant. The police has also recorded statement of complainant, his wife Rukma Devi, relative of complainant Pradeep Kumar and Alok Maurya. A perusal of complaint dated 25.08.2022 clearly indicate that two relatives Pradeep & Alok were named as eye-witness for incident of 23.08.2022. [2025:RJ-JP:14484] (6 of 7) [CRLAS-2485/2022] 11. At this stage, the Trial Court is not required to evaluate the evidence in the manner to hold a mini-trial but a duty is casted upon the Trial Court to look into the material forwarded by the prosecution for the parties to ascertain whether the material forwarded by police is sufficient to frame a charge. Herein, this case a serious cross-allegation was also levelled by the appellant- accused against the complainant but same were not addressed by the Trial Court. 12. The provision under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was introduced with purpose as mentioned hereinabove and it clearly indicate that the Trial Court is required to consider the case of discharge before proceeding under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. The Court is not a post- office meant to frame a charge under the provision of law on the basis of charge-sheet as recommended by police. The framing of charge is a very important step and the Court is required to carefully examine the evidence and arguments of both the parties before determining about existence of sufficient ground to proceed with the trial. After considering the material particularly the allegationss leveled against the complainant (respondent No.2), I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has failed to address a fair trial to the appellant-accused particularly when there are allegations of sexually exploitation by respondent No.2- complainant. 13. After considering the entire material which is available on record, I am of the considered view that it is appropriate to set aside the order of charge by the Trial Court and remand the [2025:RJ-JP:14484] (7 of 7) [CRLAS-2485/2022] matter to consider and address the grounds as raised by appellant-accused. 14. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the instant S.B. Criminal Appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration at the stage of charge after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /175-S