The court reaffirmed that at the stage of charge framing, the focus is on whether a prima facie case exists, restricting judicial inquiry to grave suspicions, not evidentiary details.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (ORAL)--The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 401 and 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the learned ASJ/FTC/Patiala House Court, New Delhi in SC No. 266/2018 arising out of FIR No. 579/2017 registered under Sections 376/506 IPC at Police Station Vasant Kunj (South), vide which the learned ASJ has framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 354C/376(2)(n)/506 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order shows complete non-application of mind, inasmuch as the allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless and the order is a mere reiteration of the allegations in the FIR. It is also submitted that even otherwise, a reading of the allegations levelled in the FIR and the material filed alongwith the charge sheet, do not disclose any prima facie case against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the present case is not one of rape, but rather one where relationship between the parties went awry. The petitioner neither had any intention to cheat the complainant nor by falsely committing to marry did he have sexual relationship with her. Learned counsel also submitted that the WhatsApp chats between the parties as well as the air tickets placed on record would show that the complainant had willingly accompanied the petitioner to outstation places where she stayed as his wife. Lastly, it is submitted that no charge under Section 354C could have been framed as no obscene material has been recovered from the mobile phone of the petitioner. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to the portion of the charge sheet where the Investigating Officer has stated that he had found the pictures of the petitioner and the prosecutrix from the petitioner's mobile phone, but no obscene photograph was found.

3. Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned APP for State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the issuance of notice. It is submitted that the Trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the petitioner after going through the material placed on record.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State and perused the entire material placed on record.

5. In the present case, the complaint came to be filed on 13.12.2017 for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC. It was alleged that the prosecutrix was a single woman staying with her old parents and in one of the parties organised at Civil Servant Officers Mess, the petitioner introduced himself to her in August, 2014, whereafter he started ringing her regularly. It was stated that she had earlier been married twice and was in litigation with her husband, and despite knowing the same, the petitioner invited her to his house in February, 2015 and professed his love for her. During further meetings, the petitioner told the complainant that his wife had deserted him about six years ago and he had sent documents for divorce to her, which will be finalised in 6 months.

When the complainant got divorced in August, 2016, the petitioner informed her that he had also obtained divorce, but had not received a copy of the divorce decree from Bhubaneshwar, Family Court. It was further alleged that in the end of August, 2016, the petitioner said that he will put vermilion on her forehead and informed common friends about their marriage and assured them of grand function when they formally got married. In this manner, the petitioner misled her in order to develop physical relations with her. Both of them travelled together and stayed as husband and wife. Again, on 05.03.2017, he put vermilion