At the stage of framing of charge, it is only to be seen whether a prima facie case exists on the basis of the material on record.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Sections 397/401 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') assailing the order on charge dated 24.02.2018passed by learned ASJ/Special Court POCSO, North West District, Rohini Court, New Delhi, arising out of FIR bearing no. 595/2016 registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 376(n)/341/506/323/363/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Sections 4/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (`POCSO').

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 had kidnapped prosecutrix near Budh Vihar, Delhi and had forcibly established physical relations with her several times during the course of time in the year 2015 and had taken her to the house of respondent no. 4 in Dehgawan Village, Badayun, Uttar Pradesh and had kept prosecutrix locked in a room for 6 months and had thereafter locked herein the house of respondent no. 3 in Budh Vihar Phase-II. Further, again after 3 months, respondent no. 1 had brought prosecutrix to his own house in Budh Vihar Phase-II. Thereafter, prosecutrix had returned to her house on 09.05.2016, however, respondent no. 1 continued to visit prosecutrix and had again forcibly established physical relations with her. Further, the brother of prosecutrix had refused to send her with respondent no. 1, whereafter, respondent no. 1 had shot at the brother of prosecutrix on 03.06.2016, against which, a separate FIR bearing No. 443/16 was registered under Sections 307/34 of IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act, 1959 and a chargesheet was filed. Accordingly, the present FIR dated 29.07.2016 was registered and respondent no. 1 was arrested on 31.08.2016 on the complaint of prosecutrix.

3. Learned APP for State has stated that MLC was conducted on 29.07.2019. It is also stated that the learned Trial Court had recorded statement of prosecutrix on 01.08.2016 and of other witnesses on 28.11.2016, wherein the prosecutrix revealed that respondent no. 1 had impregnated her and respondent no. 1 along with respondent no. 2 who was his mother had aborted the fetus and there was another girl being held captive along with prosecutrix in the house of respondent no. 1.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents states that there are no specific roles assigned relating to the involvement and conduct of respondent nos. 3 and 4 who are the sisters of respondent no.1. It is also stated that respondent no. 2 has unfortunately passed away on 20.06.2018.

5. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of both and perused material on record.

6. As regards the settled law on exercise of powers under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. in a case challenging an order on charge, it will be relevant to take note of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Manender Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2022(22) SCC OnLine SC 1057, whereby it has been held as under:

"21. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accus