[2025:RJ-JP:21108] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1520/2019 1. Rahul Baid S/o Shri Ravi Prakash, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 202 Shyam Nagar Sirsi Road Jaipur 2. Ravi Prakash Baid S/o Shri Champa Lal Baid, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 202 Shyam Nagar Sirsi Road Jaipur (Died- Abate) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Mamta Yadav D/o Shri Nanuram Yadav, R/o Shyam Nagar Colony Sirsi Road Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. Tara Chand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/05/2025 1. The instant criminal revision petition is preferred by the petitioners accused (1) Rahul Baid and (2) Ravi Prakash Baid aggrieved from order dated 10.04.2019 in Sessions Case No.22/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby after considering the material on record, charge under Sections 366, 376 and 384 of IPC against Rahul Baid and under Section 366 and 120B of IPC against petitioner No.2 Ravi Prakash Baid were directed to be framed. [2025:RJ-JP:21108] (2 of 9) [CRLR-1520/2019] 2. During pendency of this criminal revision petition, the petitioner No.2, Ravi Prakash Baid has expired. Hence, the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.2 stands abated. Now we are considering this revision petition only upto the extent of petitioner No.1 Rahul Baid. 3. Despite service, no one is present on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon judgment in case of Vineet Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of U.P.: (2017) 13 SCC 369 has submitted that in the instant case, the trial Court has ignored the material available on record at the time of framing of charge. He further submits that the respondent- complainant has initiated a criminal proceedings with malicious intentions and ulterior motive and same is just an abuse of process of law. He further submits that the prosecutrix, an adult female, has solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1 and after marriage her statement was recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaipur City but said documents were not considered by the trial Court. He also submits that the letters of prosecutrix were also submitted on record but the trial Court has not considered all such letters. 5. He further submitted that in case of Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2013) 9 SCC 293, Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana : 2013(7) SCC 675 and Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonal Vs. State of Maharashtra : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3100, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered outcome of criminal proceedings where both the parties were adult and the case relates to consensual sex between them. He [2025:RJ-JP:21108] (3 of 9) [CRLR-1520/2019] further submitted that the material on record clearly indicate that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have solemnized marriage at Arya Samaj, New Delhi and after marriage they have registered their marriage before the Government Authority at Delhi. He further submitted that once the marriage was registered under the Hindu Marriage Act by a Government Authority at Delhi, no case for rape is made out. He also referred the investigation of police and submitted that no material is forwarded with charge- sheet to show that this petitioner accused has ever misused his position and blackmailed the respondent-complainant to submit for physical relationship. 6. He also referred judgment in case of Rukmani Navekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors. : (2008) 14 SCC 1 and submitted that the trial Court was duty bound to consider all the material submitted at the time of bail application and at no point of time, the judgment in case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi : (2005) 1 SCC 568 restrains the trial Court from considering the documents submitted by petitioner. He also submitted that the trial Court has framed the charges only on basis of statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC but has not considered other material available on record. He further submits that the trial Court cannot act as a Post Office and mechanically frame the charge. He also submits that after considering the facts of the case, this Hon’ble Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused. He also submits that the order of charge is contrary to the material available on record. He specifically referred the police investigation and the statement [2025:RJ-JP:21108] (4 of 9) [CRLR-1520/2019] of witnesses recorded by police and submitted that after consideration of material no offence is made out. 7. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2002) 2 SCC 135, Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394, Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor : (2013) 3 SCC 330, Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley & Ors. : (2011) 3 SCC 351, Jinesh Lal Shah Vs. State of Bihar : (2003) 1 SCC 605. He also placed reliance upon judgment in case of Shiv Shankar @ Shiva Vs. State of Karnataka : (2019) 18 SCC 204, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2019) 9 SCC 608, Anup K. Paul Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. : 2015(4) RLW 2962 (Raj.), X Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.) : MANU/DE/2242/2020, State Vs. Sandeep : 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10332, Lalit Kumar Vats Vs. State of NCT of Delhi : Crl. M.C. No.2384/2020 (Delhi) and Vishal Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2232/2018 decided on 08.10.2018 and submitted that the trial Court is duty bound first to consider ground of discharge under Section 227 of CrPC. 8. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the trial Court has framed charges on basis of material available on record and there is no perversity. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material placed on record and also [2025:RJ-JP:21108] (5 of 9) [CRLR-1520/2019] considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. On basis of a criminal complaint filed by respondent No.2 (prosecutrix) before learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan, FIR No.217/2015 was registered at Police Station Bhankrota, District Jaipur (West) under Sections 363, 365, 366, 376, 384, 417, 503 and 120B of IPC. The police investigated the matter and after investigation, the police has filed a chargesheet against Rahul Baid under Sections 366, 376, 384 and 120B of IPC and against Ravi Prakash Baid under Sections 366 and 120B of IPC. Learned trial Court has directed to frame charge against both the petitioners on 10.04.2019. 11. The facts of the case indicated that FIR was registered on basis of a criminal complaint filed before a Court of Metropolitan Magistrate but after procuring an order under Section 156(3) of CrPC. A fact was also brought before the trial Court that victim has travelled to Delhi by airplane and, thereafter, visited Arya Samaj Mandir wherein she solemnized marriage with petitioner Rahul Baid. The fact also indicated that the marriage was registered in the office of Registrar, Govt. of NCT New Delhi. The statement of victim was recorded before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaipur. The trial Court has observed that at the stage of charge only prima facie case and graver suspicion is required to be considered. 12. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:21108] (6 of 9) [CRLR-1520/2019] 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 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. 13. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:21108] (7 of 9) [CRLR-1520/2019] is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. 14. 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), 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. 15. Learned counsel has referred the judgment in case of Rukmani Navekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors. (supra), wherein after considering the judgment of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that what kind of material produced, can be considered at the stage of framing of charge. In case of Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) charges under Section 328, 354 and 376 of IPC were quashed after considering the provisions on Sections 227, 228 and 164 of CrPC. In case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the meaning of rape or consensual sex and after considering the Section 90 of IPC acquitted the accused by granting benefit of doubt. In case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), again the issue was relating to rape or consensual sex and determination of consent. 16. We have considered other judgments as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner but for sake of brevity, we are not [2025:RJ-JP:21108] (8 of 9) [CRLR-1520/2019] referring the judgments in detail but we have taken note of principle of law, laid down in said judgments. A fact is quite apparent on record that the trial Court on basis of allegation in complaint and statement of victim under Section 164 CrPC has directed to frame charge but without considering other material on record. Herein, the victim is an adult female, knowing fully well consequences of her act. Further, on every date mentioned by her the marriage was allegedly solemnized at New Delhi and not in jurisdiction of Rajasthan. Moreover, the statement of victim was recorded before the SDM and the trial Court has referred said statements. The list of documents submitted with charge-sheet indicate that except underwear of victim, mobile handset of victim, educational documents of victim, no other article or photograph were seized by police. There has to be some evidence to draw a prima facie conclusion so that a charge can be framed. 17. After considering the material on record, we can certainly say that at the stage of charge, the trial Court cannot look into defence of petitioner accused but at the same time it cannot ignored the facts of the case and material produced on record. The impugned order clearly indicate that the trial Court has framed the charges merely on the ground of a strong suspicion against the petitioner accused and that too without considering the ingredients of offence, particularly, when several allegations were made against the petitioner accused by the prosecutrix. When factum of marriage is brought on record and prosecutrix alleged absence of her consent then Court have to look into attending circumstances, whether a charge is made out or it is a case of [2025:RJ-JP:21108] (9 of 9) [CRLR-1520/2019] discharge. The duty lies upon trial Court to consider the entire material on record in light of judgments as referred hereinabove. Therefore, I am of considered view that the matter requires re- consideration by the trial Court after setting aside the impugned order. 18. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 10.04.2019 is set aside. The matter is remitted (remanded) to the trial Court for re-consideration at the stage of charge under Sections 250 and 251 of BNSS. 19. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/45