SL. No. Dat e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No. 922 of 2025 Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J., Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 15.12.2025, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag, framed charges against the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(2) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2025, State vs. Vimal Kumar, arising out of FIR No. 0010 of 2025 dated 20.01.2025, Police Station Rudraprayag, District Rudraprayag, which was initially registered under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that no prima facie case is made out for framing charges against the revisionist. It is contended that even if the statements of the complainant recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are accepted in their entirety, the only allegation against the revisionist is that he held the hand of the complainant. It is further submitted that, as per the version of the complainant herself, the revisionist held her hand in a public place and did not leave it despite her protest. According to the learned counsel for the revisionist, such allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(2) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order framing charges be set aside and the revisionist be discharged. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submitted that the revisionist never moved any application for discharge under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Trial Court. It is further submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, inasmuch as, the statements of the complainant and the independent witnesses recorded during investigation disclose sufficient material to raise a strong suspicion against the revisionist, warranting the framing of charges for the offences under Sections 74, 75(2) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence or adjudicate upon the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations. The Court is only required to ascertain whether the material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case or raises a strong suspicion regarding the commission of the alleged offences by the accused. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another”, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the case or meticulously examine the evidence to determine whether the prosecution is likely to succeed. If the material placed on record discloses the existence of a strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence, the Court would be justified in framing the charge and allowing the matter to proceed to trial. The defence of the accused and the probative value of the evidence are matters to be considered only during the course of trial. 9. In the present case, the statements of the complainant recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as well as the statements of the independent witnesses collected during investigation, prima facie disclose allegations attracting the offences for which charges have been framed. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence or determine whether the allegations would ultimately result in conviction. 10. The impugned order reveals that the learned Trial Court has considered the material collected during investigation and, upon being satisfied that a prima facie case exists, has framed charges against the revisionist. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is, dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 17.06.2026 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c 24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A54 2D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5 DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.06.17 17:03:49 +05'30'