$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 391/2026 NARENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhuvneshwar Tyagi, Adv. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 10.07.2026 This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 19732/2026 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CRL.REV.P. 391/2026 & CRL.M.A. 19731/2026 2. This is a petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), seeking setting aside of the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned ASJ (FTSC)(RC), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC No. 29/2025, arising out of FIR No. 31/2024, Police Station Subzi Mandi, registered under Sections 376B/377/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), whereby charges under Sections 376/377 IPC were directed to be framed against the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 were married on 19.04.2008, and two daughters were born out of the wedlock. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, and they initiated divorce This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:45:35 proceedings by mutual consent. The first motion under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'HMA') was allowed by the Family Court, Dwarka, on 04.11.2022, and a decree of divorce by mutual consent was thereafter granted on 19.05.2023. 4. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 submitted a written complaint alleging commission of offences by the petitioner in relation to incidents stated to have taken place in April, 2022, May, 2023 and 18.06.2023, pursuant to which FIR No. 31/2024 was registered on 13.01.2024 at Police Station Subzi Mandi under Sections 376B/377/323/506 of the IPC. 5. Vide the impugned order dated 01.04.2026, the learned ASJ (FTSC)(RC), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi held that charges under Sections 376/377 IPC were made out against the petitioner while declining to frame charges under Sections 323/506 IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has framed charges against the present petitioner in a wholly mechanical, arbitrary and illegal manner. He submits that there are glaring discrepancies between the allegations made by the prosecutrix, the documents placed on record and the statements of the other witnesses. He further submits that the prosecutrix was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner and that the parties were married and subsequently obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 19.05.2023. He further submits that thereafter, in connivance with the co-accused, namely, Dinesh Chamoli, the prosecutrix has lodged a false case against the petitioner. 7. Issue notice. 8. Learned APP for the State accepts notice and submits that all the facts stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disputed questions of fact and not of law, which cannot be decided at the stage of framing of charge without the parties leading evidence. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:45:35 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that there are contradictions between the allegations made by the prosecutrix, the documents placed on record and the statements of the witnesses. It is further submitted that the parties were married, subsequently obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and that the present case has been falsely lodged against the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused, who has been placed in Column No. 12 of the chargesheet. 11. The aforesaid submissions raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of framing of charge. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the material placed on record, and the prosecution case cannot be rejected at the threshold by presuming the allegations to be false. It may be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its order in SLP(Crl) No. 9552/2021, titled Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, has held that discrepancies between the FIR and a subsequent statement may constitute a defence available to the accused, however, such discrepancies cannot be made a ground for discharge without the trial being conducted, as the veracity and effect of such discrepancies are matters to be examined during the course of evidence and not at the threshold. 12. The settled legal position governing the stage of framing of charge may be usefully noticed. The Court is required to examine whether the facts alleged by the prosecution and the material collected during investigation, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offence. The material on record is to be sifted only for the limited purpose of determining whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused; the Court is not to conduct a mini trial or adjudicate upon the correctness of the allegations at this stage. In Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:45:35 Pradesh & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 609, the Supreme Court held: “18. It is, thus, clear that while considering the discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the Court is not to hold the mini trial by marshalling the evidence.” 13. It thus emerges that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to consider the material placed on record, hear the submissions advanced on behalf of the prosecution and the accused, and determine whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused. If the Court finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, it shall discharge the accused by recording reasons. On the other hand, if, upon such consideration, the Court is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it is required to frame the charge and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. 14. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Court at the stage of framing of charge is very limited. At this stage, the Court is not required to meticulously examine the truth, veracity or effect of the evidence, nor can it evaluate the probable defence of the accused. The Court is only required to examine whether the material placed on record raises a strong suspicion giving rise to a presumption that the accused has committed the alleged offence. At the same time, the Court cannot act merely as a mouthpiece of the prosecution. The principles governing the scope of discharge and framing of charge under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. have been authoritatively laid down in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., (1979) 3 SCC 4, and reiterated in State v. S. Selvi & Anr., (2018) 13 SCC 455, wherein the Supreme Court, quoting Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368, laid down the following principles: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:45:35 i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:45:35 opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.” 16. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 01.04.2026. The learned Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned order after considering the material placed on record and the submissions advanced by the parties, and no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found therein warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 17. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 18. Pending application(s), are accordingly dismissed. 19. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 10, 2026/prg/Av This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:45:35