JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to order dated 20.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 Mandi, Distt. Mandi, HP in S.T. Registration No.48 of 2020 under Sections 376, 342, 382, 506, 323 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’), whereby, respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’) came to be discharged of the allegations levelled against him. 2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner/State is that learned Court below, while passing impugned order dated 20.10.2023, has failed to appreciate the evidence as well as material adduced on record in its right perspective, as a result thereof, the respondent, who has committed heinous crime under Section 376 of IPC, has been erroneously discharged. 3. While making this Court peruse FIR lodged at the behest of the victim/prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity), Mr. Rajan Kohal, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that on 30.11.2019, while victim/prosecutirx was returning from forest after grazing her mules and horses and had stopped at the shop of the accused to purchase sugar and other items, respondent forcibly dragged her to the basement room and thereafter sexually assaulted her against her wishes. Mr. Kohal stated that husband of petitioner, who reached the spot after having heard cries of the victim/prosecutrix, rescued her from the clutches of respondent, who had also snatched gold ornaments as well as mobile phone of the victim/prosecutrix. While referring to the statements of victim/prosecutrix recorded under Sections 154 & 164 of Cr.PC, Mr. Kohal further attempted to argue that victim/prosecutrix categorically disclosed the factum of her having been ravished by respondent on the date of incident, but yet learned Court below while ignoring the statements made by victim/prosecutrix  under Sections 154  and 164 Cr.PC proceeded to discharge  the accused on flimsy grounds. Mr. Kahol contended that at the time of framing of charges, learned Court below was not required to sift the entire evidence, rather it was only required to infer prima facie case, if any, against respondent. Mr. Mr. Kahol contended that at the time of framing of charges, learned Court below was not required to sift the entire evidence, rather it was only required to infer prima facie case, if any, against respondent. Mr. Kahol submitted that since bare perusal of the statements of victim/prosecutrix recorded under Sections 154 and 164 of Cr.PC indicates factum of her being subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, there was no occasion, if any, for learned trial Court to discharge the respondent for his having committed offenses punishable under Sections 376, 342, 382, 506 & 323 of IPC. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent while making this Court peruse statements of victim/prosecutrix recorded under Sections 154 & 164 of Cr.PC vehemently argued that no case much less under Section 376 of IPC is made out against the respondent and no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below while discharging respondent, who has been otherwise falsely implicated. 5. Mr. Digvijay Singh stated that if the statements of victim/ prosecutrix recorded under Section 154 is perused juxtaposing her statement U/S 164 Cr.PC, there are material contradictions, which clearly suggest that the victim/prosecutrix, with a view to harass respondent, concocted a false story. While referring to two supplementary statements  given by  the victim/prosecutrix, Mr. Digvijay, stated that at one point of time, allegation of theft/snatching of gold ornaments was levelled against the respondent, however, subsequently investigating agency was informed that gold ornaments were found in the house of the victim/prosecutrix on the date of alleged incident, but yet again in third supplementary affidavit, victim/prosecutrix levelled allegation of theft/snatching of her gold ornaments as well as of mobile phone by the respondent. Lastly, Mr. Digvijay Singh, stated that since bare perusal of material evidence adduced on record by the prosecution belies the story of prosecution with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, no illegality can be said to have been committed by learned Court below, while passing impugned order, thereby discharging the respondent under relevant provisions of law. 6. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material on record, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material on record, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Case titled Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (retired) vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, reported as AIR 2023 SC 2480 :(2023)2 Crimes (SC) 414, which has been otherwise taken note by learned trial Court clearly suggests that at the time of discharge of an accused,  evidence produced by prosecution along with charge-sheet, should be taken into consideration. In case no case is made out, then accused can be discharged. No doubt, truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of material produced cannot be gone into at the stage of framing of charge, but if at the time of sifting evidence for the purpose of considering prayer made for discharge of the accused, Court is unable to infer prime facie case, it can proceed to discharge the accused. No doubt, at the time of discharge, Court is not required to sift the material adduced on record minutely and carefully, but once it arrives to a conclusion that material adduced on record to prove the guilt of accused is not sufficient to hold him/her guilty of his/her having committed offence punishable under the charges framed against him, it can always proceed to discharge the accused. 8. It is well settled that 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. If the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge Under Section 228 of Cr.PC, if not, he will discharge the accused. 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. As has been stated herein above, that in case, while examining the material adduced on record by prosecution along with final report under Section 173, Court is unable to infer a prima facie case and arrives at a conclusion that proposed prosecution against accused shall fail in all probabilities, it with a view to prevent abuse of process of law can always discharge the accused. 9. True it is, at the initial stage of framing of charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with the strong suspicion whether the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove him guilty, but at the same time, Court, while framing charge should come to conclusion that prima-facie case, if any, exists to the satisfaction of the Court against the accused. It has been repeatedly held by Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments that though courts need not undertake an elaborate enquiry, while sifting and weighing the material but court needs to consider whether evidentiary material on record, if generally accepted would reasonably connect the accused with crime or not. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled L. Krishna Reddy v. State by Station House Officer and Ors, (2014) 14 SCC 401 , has held that Court is neither substitute nor an adjunct of the prosecution, rather once a case is presented to it by the prosecution its bounden duty is to sift through the material to ascertain whether prima-facie case has been established, which would justify and merit the prosecution of a person. The relevant paras are as follows:- “10. Our attention has been drawn to Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia as well as K.Narayana Rao but we are unable to appreciate any manner in which they would persuade a court to continue the prosecution of the parents of the deceased. After considering Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, this Court has expounded the law in these words:(Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad case, SCC p. 721, para 14) "14.... In fact, Section 227 itself   contains   enough   guidelines   as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that "the Judge shall discharge when he considers that there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for proceeding against the accused". In fact, Section 227 itself   contains   enough   guidelines   as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that "the Judge shall discharge when he considers that there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for proceeding against the accused". The 'ground' in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be   determined   and   not   at   the time of framing of charge. The Court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor it is necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the Court has  to  consider  is  whether  the evidenciary material on record if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more need be enquired into" 11. The court is neither a substitute nor an adjunct of the prosecution. On the contrary, once a case is presented to it by the prosecution, its bounden duty is to sift through the material to ascertain whether a   prima  facie    case  has   been established which would justify and merit the prosecution of a person. The interest of a person arraigned as an accused must also be kept in perspective lest, on the basis of flippant or vague or vindictive    accusations,  bereft of probative evidence,  the   ordeals  of a   trial  have  to  be needlessly suffered and endured. We hasten to clarify  that we think  the   statements  of  the complainant are those of an anguished father who has  lost   his  daughter    due   to    the greed and cruelty of his son-in-law. As we have already noted, the husband has taken his own life possibly in remorse and repentance. The death of a child even to avaricious parents is the worst      conceivable      punishment.” 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. (2011) 11 SCC 259 , has held as under: “12. This Court, in a number of cases, has laid down the scope and ambit of the High Court's power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly,  carefully  and  with  great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly,  carefully  and  with  great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice  of  the  court,  then  the  Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute. 13. The law has been crystallized more than half a century ago in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein this Court has summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. This Court summarized the   following   three   broad   categories where the High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under section 482: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge." 14. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 SCC 736 , according to the court, the process against the accused can be quashed or set aside : "(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients  of  an  offence  which  is alleged against the accused; (2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like". 15. 15. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 , observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash  a  proceeding  when  it  comes  to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceedings 20 ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.” 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa (supra) has categorically held that where discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like, High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under S.482.Cr.PC. 13. Reliance is placed upon recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr Anand Rai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr., SLP (Criminal) 10711 of 2025 decided on 10.02.2026, wherein it has been observed that Courts must consciously distinguish between a genuine case that warrants a trial and one that rests only on suspicion. Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced herein under: “Before parting with the matter, it is observed that at the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge, the Court is not dealing with an abstract legal exercise. It is dealing with real people, real anxieties, and the real weight of criminal prosecution. Judicial responsibility at this stage calls for care, balance, and an honest engagement with the facts on record. The power to frame a charge is not meant to be exercised by default or out of caution alone. It is dealing with real people, real anxieties, and the real weight of criminal prosecution. Judicial responsibility at this stage calls for care, balance, and an honest engagement with the facts on record. The power to frame a charge is not meant to be exercised by default or out of caution alone. When the material placed before the Court, taken at face value, does not disclose the ingredients of an offence, the law expects the Court to have the clarity and courage to say so and to keep such a case aside. Discharge, in that sense, is not a technical indulgence but an essential safeguard. The Court must consciously distinguish between a genuine case that warrants a trial and one that rests only on suspicion or assumption or for that matter without any basis. To allow a matter to proceed despite the absence of a prima facie case is to expose a person to the strain, stigma, and uncertainty of criminal proceedings without legal necessity. Fidelity to the rule of law requires the Court to remember that the process itself can become the punishment if this responsibility is not exercised with care. This responsibility weighs heaviest on Trial Courts, which are the first courts most people ever step into. For a litigant or an accused, the Trial Court is not just one level in a hierarchy. It represents the face of the judiciary itself. The sensitivity, fairness, and legal discipline shown at this stage shape how ordinary citizens understand justice. The impression a Trial Court creates, through its approach to facts and law, often becomes the impression people carry of the entire judicial system. That is why, at every stage and especially at the threshold, Trial Courts must remain alive to the human consequences of their decisions and to the trust that society places in them.” 14. In the case at hand, if statements of victim/prosecutrix recorded under Section 154 and 164 Cr.PC are read in conjunction, there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. Digvijay learned counsel representing respondent that there are material contradictions. In the case at hand, if statements of victim/prosecutrix recorded under Section 154 and 164 Cr.PC are read in conjunction, there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. Digvijay learned counsel representing respondent that there are material contradictions. No doubt contradiction and inconsistency, if any, cannot be a ground to discharge the accused but if contradictions and consistencies itself create a doubt with regard to the correctness of the story of the prosecution  and same is not  further corroborated by other corroborative evidence proposed to be relied upon by prosecution, Court can pass appropriate order to prevent the abuse of process of law. 15. Interestingly, victim/prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC gave altogether different version. In her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, she stated that while she was coming back to house after grazing mules and horses and had reached near shop of the accused for purchasing some grocery items, accused pulled her to basement and sexually assaulted against her wishes. She alleged that subsequently her husband came on the spot and saved her from the clutches of the accused. Interestingly, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, she gave altogether a different statement. She submitted that respondent came from back and pushed her, as a result of which, she fell on the ground and became unconscious and thereafter she doesn't know what happened. She further stated that subsequently her husband found her in naked condition and took her to his house. Interestingly, in her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, she alleged that accused also snatched her gold ornaments but subsequently, in supplementary statement, it was stated that gold ornaments were found in the house itself. Interestingly, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, she nowhere alleged factum, if any, of snatching of gold ornaments and mobile phone. Thrice, victim/prosecutrix as well as her husband changed their statements. In last supplementary statement, it again came to be alleged that respondent snatched gold ornaments as well as mobile phone of the victim/prosecutrix. If the statements of husband of victim/prosecutrix and her mother-in-law are perused, there are material contradictions. As per statement of mother-in-law of victim/prosecutrix, incident did not happen in the shop of accused, rather it happened in the building itself, where victim/prosecutrix is residing along with the other family members. If the statements of husband of victim/prosecutrix and her mother-in-law are perused, there are material contradictions. As per statement of mother-in-law of victim/prosecutrix, incident did not happen in the shop of accused, rather it happened in the building itself, where victim/prosecutrix is residing along with the other family members. If the statement of victim/prosecutrix as well as her husband is seen, it suggests that victim was sexually assaulted against her wishes by the respondent in the basement below his shop. 16. Leaving everything aside, medical evidence adduced on record nowhere proves factum with regard to sexual assault. True it is that statement of victim/prosecutrix is sufficient qua the allegation of sexual assault and it cannot be discarded/brushed aside easily but once victim/prosecutrix has repeatedly changed her stance and as per her own version, she after being pushed by respondent had become unconscious, version put fourth by her husband with regard to sexual assault upon victim/prosecutrix by the respondent becomes highly doubtful. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, victim/prosecutrix stated that she had become unconscious but in same breath she stated that after having heard her cries, her husband came on the spot, which version of her is otherwise totally contrary to her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC. 17. Having carefully examined the matter, this Court is persuaded to agree with the findings returned by learned Court below that there are no grounds to proceed further in the matter. Otherwise also, evidence adduced on record by prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner is not sufficient to hold respondent guilty of his having committed offence punishable Under Sections 376, 342, 382, 506, 323 of IPC. Since trial is likely to fail in all probabilities for the reason stated herein above, no fruitful purpose would be served by putting accused to ordeal of protracted trial, which may result in the acquittal of the accused. Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and same is upheld and present criminal revision petition fails and dismissed, accordingly.