1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2329 of 2025 Smt. Swati Das Mishra D/o Prem Kumar Mishra Aged About 31 Years Occupation - Service, R/o L.I.C. Colony Road, Behind Kumar Provision Store, Ekta Nagar, Mova Raipur, Police Station - Pandri Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.), Mo.No.- 9575121610 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Harkishore Das S/o Late C. Das Aged About 62 Years R/o Nayaganj, Near Samlai Temple Raigarh, Police Station - City Kotwali, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.), (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 24/07/2025 1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.07.26 12:12:32 +0530 2 learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Revision No.2/2025 whereby the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the JMFC, Raigarh in Criminal Case No. 212/2023, discharging the petitioner from the charges levelled against him, has been set aside. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on the basis of the written complaint made by respondent no.2/complainant, FIR was registered at PS City Kotwali, Raigarh in Crime No.534/2029. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 507, 201 of IPC and Section 67(a) of the IT Act. 3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 239 of CrPC to discharge her from the said charges. The trial Court accepted the said application and discharged the accused/petitioner from the said charges by recording her statement even before framing of charge. In the revision preferred against the said order by the State, the revisional Court while setting aside the order of the trial Court also rejected the application of the accused under Section 239 of CrPC leading to the filing of this petition. 4. In the matter of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammad Shattaf and Others, 2023 (7) SCC 633, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused at the stage of charge, in paragraphs – 11 & 12 held as under: 11. The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after filing of chargesheet, application for discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no 3 offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the court. 12. The law on the point has been summarised in a recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191. Relevant paras are extracted below: - “11……...11.1. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398, this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227 CrPC What is required to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application has been considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, 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. 11.2. In the recent decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515, one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) speaking for the Bench has observed and held in para 25 as under: 4 “25. The High Court [M.R. Hiremath v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4970] ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court 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. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709, adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held: ‘29. … 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. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.” 5. It is a well-established principle of law that at the time of framing of charges, the charge-sheet has to be examined as to whether a prima facie case is made out from it or not. Whereas in this case, the trial Court has discharged the accused after taking her statement before framing of charge. The trial Court has erred in taking the statement of the accused before framing of charge, therefore, the process of court stands vitiated and in such situation, the 5 application of the accused/petition under Section 239 CrPC needs to be considered afresh. 6. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, since appropriate proceeding has not been conducted, the order of the trial Court dated 06.09.2024 and the impugned order of the revisional Court dated 20.06.2025 are set aside and the trial Court is directed to consider the application of the petitioner/accused filed under section 239 CrPC and pass an order afresh in accordance with law at the earliest. 7. The petitioner is directed to remain present before the trial Court on 13th August, 2025. 8. The Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the present CRMP stands disposed of at motion stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai