JUDGMENT

Pratibha Rani, J. (Oral)

1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29th March, 2017 whereby respondents/accused persons have been discharged in case FIR No.249/2016, PS Palam Village for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 376/511 IPC, which are triable by the Court of Session, the State has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to set aside the order whereby both the accused/respondents have been discharged for the aforesaid offences..

2. Vide impugned order dated 29th March, 2017, the learned Addl Sessions Judge has discharged the accused persons/respondents No.1 and 2 for the following reasons:

`11. It is the settled law that order framing the charges does substantially affect the persons and the Court must not automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecution authorities, by relying on the documents referred to in Section 173 Cr.PC, consider it proper to institute the case.

12. Though not referred to or relied upon, it has been observed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in judgment - Sunder Singh v. State of M.P., Cr.R No.607/2013 decided on 3.9.2013 as under :