Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jaspal Thakur vs Kanchan Chauhan And Ors on 21 June, 2025
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 508 of 2023 Reserved on: 29.05.2025 Date of Decision: 21.06.2025 Jaspal Thakur ...Petitioner Versus Kanchan Chauhan and ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raman Sharma,
Advocate, vice Mr. Vinod
Kumar Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1, 2, 3 & 5 : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma,
Advocate.
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Adarsh Vashista,
Advocate.
For respondents No.6 & 8 : Mr. Jitender Sharma,
Additional Advocate
General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the order dated 25.06.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the complaint filed by the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
Page |2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 ) petitioner (complainant before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 452, 427, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). It was asserted that the complainant is a resident of the village Bhajjla, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur. The accused No.2 has a dispute with the complainant. She filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. Accused No.2 visited the village of the complainant to collect the statistical data of the local area. She openly threatened the complainant and his family members in the presence of the children, their parents and the staff of the Anganwadi worker. Accused No.2, along with the remaining accused, visited the house of the complainant on 13.08.2013 at about 2:00 pm under the supervision of Accused No.8. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 started beating the complainant in the presence of his Page |3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 ) mother. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 locked the door of the house and proclaimed that they would do whatever they felt like. The complainant cried for help. Sarwan Singh and other villagers visited the house of the complainant and rescued the complainant and his mother. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 broke the lock of the almirah and boxes, where the documents and money were kept. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 threatened to kill the complainant and his family members. Complainant visited the police station and narrated the incident to the police; however, the police refused to take any action. The complainant visited PHC Bhoranj for the treatment; however, no treatment was provided. The complainant got the injuries photographed; hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per the law.
3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, the matter was listed for recording the pre-charge evidence and the statements of four witnesses were recorded.
4. Learned Trial Court held after discussing the statements that the statements of the witnesses were not sufficient to frame charges against the accused. The names of the Page |4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 ) witnesses were not mentioned by the complainant in his complaint or during his preliminary evidence. No reason was given for the omission. Complainant's mother was admittedly present on the spot, but she was not examined; therefore, the accused were discharged.
5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present revision asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the law and the evidence in its right perspective. Learned Trial Court discharged the accused without any reason. The accused had given beatings to the complainant. Accused No.2 is harassing the complainant and taking advantage of her political influence. The Medical Officer categorically stated that injuries can be caused by fists or slaps, but this evidence was ignored by the learned Trial Court; therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
6. I have heard Mr. Raman Sharma, learned vice counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/Accused No.1, 2, 3 and 5, Mr. Adarsh Vashisht, learned Page |5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 ) counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.6 to 8/State.
7. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in discharging the accused. Sufficient material was brought on record to frame charges against the accused. Learned Trial Court was required to see a prima facie case while framing the charges. However, the learned Trial Court weighed the evidence as if the matter was being decided after the conclusion of the evidence; the approach of the learned Trial Court vitiated the findings recorded by it. Therefore, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
8. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5, submitted that the charges could not have been framed on the basis of the evidence led before the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court was required to see that the evidence, if unrebutted, would result in the conviction of the accused, and the evidence did not pass this standard. Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while discharging the accused, Page |6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 ) and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court while deciding the revision petition; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
9. Mr. Adarsh Vashisht, learned counsel for respondent No.4, adopted these submissions and submitted that the evidence of the complainant was not sufficient to frame charges, and the learned Trial Court had rightly discharged the accused.
10. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.6 to 8, submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, had discharged accused No.8 in Criminal Revision No.2/2014, and his name was wrongly mentioned in the memo of parties. There was insufficient evidence on record to frame charges, and the learned Trial Court had rightly discharged the accused; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 that the Judge has to examine the evidence placed by the Page |7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 ) prosecution to determine whether there is sufficient material to frame the charges against the accused or not. The Court is not to sift or weigh the evidence while framing the charges. It was observed at page 693:
"Discussion and findings
7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial Judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on the basis of the charge-sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie reveal that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge, would suffice, and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed.
8. At the time of framing the charge and taking cognisance, the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of the charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge- sheet material only.
Page |8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 )
9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the charge- sheet material at the stage of framing the charge, which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227CrPC is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such a hearing to oral hearing and oral arguments only, and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the IO.
10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged.
11. This Court in State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721] adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held : (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29) "29. We have bestowed our consideration on the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom Page |9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 ) taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the 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."
12. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression "the record of the case" used in Section 227CrPC is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency.
13. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659: 1996 SCC (Cri) 820] and State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1110] has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of prima facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material P a g e | 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 ) on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial."
13. A similar view was taken in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 520, wherein it was observed:
16. Section 227 CrPC deals with discharge. What Section 227 CrPC contemplates is that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. At the stage of consideration of discharge, the court is not required to undertake a threadbare analysis of the materials gathered by the prosecution. All that is required to be seen at this stage is that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In other words, the materials should be sufficient to enable the court to initiate a criminal trial against the accused. It may be so that at the end of the trial, the accused may still be acquitted. At the stage of discharge, the court is only required to consider whether there are sufficient materials which can justify the launch of a criminal trial against the accused. By its very nature, a discharge is at a higher pedestal than an acquittal. Acquittal is at the end of the trial process, may be for a technicality or on the benefit of doubt, or the prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused; but when an accused is discharged, it means that there are no materials to justify the launch of a criminal trial against the accused. Once he is discharged, he is no longer an accused.
P a g e | 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 )
14. This position was reiterated in Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 742, wherein it was observed:
6. In view of the aforesaid, we find that there was sufficient material on record for the Ld. The Sessions Court is to exercise powers under section 227 CrPC and discharge the Appellant. It is trite law that at the time of framing of charge, a mini trial is not permissible (State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 314) and the Trial Court has to proceed with the material brought on record by the prosecution and determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged (State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709). A bare review of the FIR and the charge-sheet and material placed on record by the prosecution would clarify that the ingredients of offences under Section 375/506 IPC are not established.
15. Learned Trial Court held that the statements of the witnesses were not reliable because their names were not mentioned in the complaint or the preliminary evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court. This conclusion is based upon the material on record. A perusal of the complaint filed before the learned Trial Court shows that the name of any person was not mentioned. It was stated in para 4 of the complaint that Sarwan Singh and other villagers visited the house of the complainant and rescued him and his mother from the accused. He stated, while P a g e | 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 ) appearing as CW1 on 18.10.2013, that the accused came to his house. They gave him beatings and threatened him. He did not mention the name of any person who had visited the spot; hence, the learned Trial Court was justified in doubting the testimonies of the witnesses.
16. Krishan Lal (CW3) stated that he heard some noise and went to the spot. He found three police officials. Jaspal has sustained injuries. He has not stated that the accused had given beatings to the complainant in his presence; therefore, his testimony does not establish the complainant's version.
17. Krinjala Devi (CW4) stated that she heard the noise. She went to the spot and saw that some people were beating the complainant. The police officials were present. She did not name any of the accused as the person who was beating the complainant; therefore, her testimony also does not establish that the accused had given the beatings to the complainant.
18. Dr. Rakesh Dhiman (CW1) stated that he noticed scratches and abrasions on the back, a history of decreased hearing of Rt. ear and pain on the left ankle. He specifically stated that the injuries could be caused by a fall and not by a fist blow or a P a g e | 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19165 ) slap. Therefore, this witness also did not support the case of the complainant that he was beaten by the accused, and he had sustained injuries due to the beatings.
19. As per the complaint, the complainant was rescued by Sarwan Singh; however, he was not examined. Learned Trial Court had rightly pointed out that the complainant's mother, who was stated to be present, was also not examined; therefore, in these circumstances, the learned Trial Court was justified in refusing to frame the charges. This was a possible view, which could have been taken based on the evidence led before the learned Trial Court, and this Court will not interfere with the same even if another view is possible.
20. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is fully sustainable; hence, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any also stands disposed of.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 21st June, 2025 (Saurav pathania)