Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. In the present case, Trial Court Record has been summoned and the same has been carefully perused. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that an FIR bearing no.372/2019 was registered U/s 323/354/354B/451/506/34 IPC at PS KNK Marg and after completion of investigation charge-sheet for the offences punishable U/s U/s 323/341/506/354/354B/34 IPC was filed against accused persons namely Jaya Chatarji, Monika Chatarji, Raju Kumar @ Rajeev, Radhika Chatarji and Tapan Chatarji (name mentioned in column no.12 of the charge-sheet). Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that after taking cognizance of the alleged offences, all accused persons were summoned by Ld. Trial Court. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that after hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order dated SUSHIL KUMAR State Vs Raju Kumar @ Rajeev & Tapan Chatarji Page No.7 of 10 CR No. 241/2023 & Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR Priya Sehgal Vs The State & Ors. Date: 2025.05.23 16:33:26 +0530 25.01.2023 whereby charges for the offences punishable under section 451/323/506/34 IPC were framed against accused persons namely Jaya Chatarji, Monika Chatarji, Raju Kumar @ Rajeev, Radhika Chatarji and Tapan Chatarji and separate charge for the offence punishable under section 354 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji only. Vide impugned order on charge dated 25.01.2023, Ld. Trial Court discharged accused persons namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji for the offence punishable under section 354B IPC by giving reason that the complainant has not alleged that her clothes were torned deliberately by the above-named accused persons.

9. It is well settled proposition of law that at the time of framing of charge, Court has to see as to whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons on the basis of complaint, statements recorded under section 161 Cr. PC and other evidences collected by IO during the investigation. Further, at the stage of framing of charge, meticulous evaluation of evidences are not required. In the present case from perusal of the Trial Court Record, this Court is of considered view that there is sufficient material on record to prima facie form an opinion that respondents / accused persons namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji have committed the offences punishable under section 354B IPC. It is well settled principle of law that at the time of framing of charge, Court is not accepted to go deep into the probative value of material on record and the Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the material produce is sufficient or not for convicting the accused.

10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of view that Ld. Trial Court has committed an error while discharging respondent/accused namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji for the offence punishable U/s 354B IPC. Therefore, impugned order dated 25.01.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court is modified to the extent that prima facie case for offence punishable under section 354B IPC is made out against respondent / accused persons namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji. Ld. Trial Court is directed to frame additional charge for offence punishable under section 354B IPC against respondent/accused persons Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji and shall proceed further, in accordance with law. The present revision petitions stands disposed off as allowed.