The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case and the evaluation of material by the court before framing charges under sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present Revision Petition is filed under section 397(1) Cr.P.C against the order dated 12.02.2016 passed by the Court of Shri Sanjiv Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in FIR bearing no. 0482/2015 at PS Greater Kailash for the offence punishable under sections 376/384 IPC.

2. The present FIR bearing no. 0482/2015 was got registered on the basis of complaint made by the complainant "P" on the allegations as mentioned in the FIR bearing no. 0482/2015 at PS Greater Kailash under sections 376/384 IPC. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed wherein the respondent no.1was charged for the offences punishable under sections 376/384 IPC and the respondent no. 2 was charged for the offence punishable under section 384 IPC.

3. The Court of Shri Sanjiv Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 12.02.2016 ordered for framing of the charges under sections 376 and 417/376 IPC against the respondent no. 1. The respondents were ordered to be discharged for the offence punishable under section 384 IPC. The order dated 12.02.2016 reads as under:

On 12.10.2015, the prosecutrix gave a complaint alleging therein that she runs spa parlour at East of Kailash. On 30.06.2015, she met the accused Deepak Malhotra and Satyabhan Singh in a gym near her parlour. She and Deepak Malhotra came close. On 11.07.2015, they stayed in Allure Hotel where the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. He thereafter promised to marry her. She came to know thataccused is already married. He then promised to take divorce from his wife. She paid Rs.25,000/- cash to the accused Satybhan and Rs.2 lacs each on two occasions to Satyabhan to pay to Deepak Malhotra. Satyabhan also took Rs.50,000/- from her for a function of his son. She alleged that thereafter the accused persons started blackmailing her that they have prepared her video.

During investigation, no video was recovered from the possession or at the instance of the accused persons. From the complaint and the documents, it cannot be inferred that the said money was taken by Satyabhan after blackmailing the prosecutrix. The dispute between the prosecutrix and accused Satybhan appears to be of civil nature. It has been given a colour of criminal case against the accused Satyabhan. Prima facie no case is made out against accused Satyabhan. He is discharged of the offence. His bail bond be cancelled. His surety be discharged. He is, however, directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- in compliance of Section 437A IPC.

Prima facie case under section 376 and 417/376 IPC is made out against the accused Deepak Malhotra. Let charge be framed. Charge framed. Accused pleads not guilty and claims trial.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the petitioner/State stated that on the basis of material collected during the investigation the offence punishable under section 384 IPC is made out against the respondents and referred to the contents of FIR. The arguments as advanced by the Additional Public Prosecutor are controverted by the respective counsel for the respondents.

5. The Chapter XVIII of the Cr.P.C deals with trial before a Court of Session. Section 227 deals with situation when the accused shall be discharged. Section 228 deals with framing of charge. Sections 227 and 288 of Cr.P.C of reads as under:

227. Discharge.-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 not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

228. Framing of charge.-(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has