Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. While dealing with the issue of framing of charge u/s 376, 493, 494 and 406 IPC simultaneously the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in criminal revision No.720/2007 in case titled as Vinod Sharma vs State vide order dated 11.07.2011 as well as dealing with the issue of earlier complaints filed by the same complainant without making any allegation of commission of rape, it was held as under:-

8. The next set of allegations against the Petitioner is that at Nanital Petitioner and she performed marriage in their room and thereafter lived as husband and wife though this wedding was not recognized by anybody and thus, had physical relations. These allegations will not fall within the ambit of an offence punishable under Section 493 IPC which reads as under:-

19. Next contention is that there are two previous FIRs registered against the accused by the complainant in Ghaziabad and in one of the complaint, she has disclosed that she came to know that accused is already having two wives. Thus, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that the accused cannot be tried and convicted for the same offence twice. The prosecutrix, if , has any grievance, she may approach to the court of Ghaziabad and file appropriate petition before the court and accused may be summoned by the court at the appropriate stage. However, this argument is having no merit. There is provision u/s 300 Cr.P.C which makes it clear that the principles of double jeopardy, contemplates that accused once has been tried by the court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall and till such conviction or acquittal remains in force, cannot be tried again for the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made or for which he might have been convicted. However, in the present case, there was no conviction or acquittal of the accused in the FIRs registered in Ghaziabad. Moreover, those offences have been registered under the sections different from the sections in the present charge sheet. There was no charge sheet against the accused u/s 376, 493, 494, 495 and 496 of IPC in earlier FIRs and therefore, registration of the FIRs in Ghaziabad, is no bar for trial in the present matter. Moreover, as discussed herein above that making no allegation in the earlier complaint about the commission of rape and bigamy does not make any difference.

20. Other arguments advanced on behalf of the accused regarding jurisdiction etc FIR No.75/13 PS Naraina U/s 323/376/406/420/493/494/495/496 IPC State vs Anil Kr. Garg 16 of 18 can be better appreciated only after trial and it is settled principle of law that once the complaint has been filed disclosing cognizable offence, police is bound to register the FIR and documents relied upon by accused cannot be considred at this stage.

21. Moresoever, at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on records cannot be gone into, the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which has prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the provable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weight in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding the matter u/s 227 or u/s 228 of the Code. At that stage the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. But 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. While deciding the question of framing of charge in a criminal case, the court is not to apply exactly the standard and test which it finally applies for determining the Guilt or otherwise. This being the initial stage of the trial, the court is not supposed to decide whether the materials collected by the Investigating Agency provides sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to culminate in his conviction. What is required to be seen is whether there is strong suspicion which may lead to the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. n this regard this court is supported with law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court reported as "UOI vs Prafulla Kumar, AIR 1979 FIR No.75/13 PS Naraina U/s 323/376/406/420/493/494/495/496 IPC State vs Anil Kr. Garg 17 of 18 SC 366, State of Maharashtra and others vs Som Nath Thapa and other JT 1996 (4) SC 615, State of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2018: (1997 CRI LJ 1606), Umar Abdula Sakoor Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau JT 1999 (5) SC 394, Kalu Mal Gupta vs. State 2000 I AD Delhi 107".

22. From the statement of prosecutrix and statements of other witnesses as well as documents available on record, prima facie, there is sufficient ground to frame charge against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 493, 494, 495 and 376 of IPC. However, there is no material available on record to frame charge against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 323, 406, 420 and 496 IPC. Let charge be framed against the accused separately on 16.11.2015.

(Devendra Kumar Sharma) ASJ/FTC/Court No.7/PHC Lockup Building/30.10.15 FIR No.75/13 PS Naraina U/s 323/376/406/420/493/494/495/496 IPC State vs Anil Kr. Garg 18 of 18