ORDER: The accused in C.C.No.89 of 1994 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha is aggrieved that based on a private complaint filed by the first respondent herein charge under Sec.496 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against him.

2. In the complaint filed before the trial Court on 31.10.1990, the first respondent, who is a Professor in English in the S.N. College, Cherthala, alleged that during the pendency of her marriage with one P.R.R. Babu who was her colleague in the same college, the present petitioner made advances to her which ultimately resulted in the performance of a customary marriage on 17.9.1975 at the residence of one Sadanandan, who was a close friend and relative of the petitioner, that the accused was fully aware of the fact that the said marriage was not a legal one in so far as both parties thereto had been legally married earlier and that though the petitioner and the first respondent lived together as husband and wife until 1988, the first respondent has abandoned her thereafter.

3. Shri T.R.Raman Pillai, who appeared for the revision petitioner, submitted that even accepting the averments in the complaint as correct, there is no scope for framing charge against the revision petitioner insofar as the ingredients of Sec.496 of the Indian Penal Code have neither been pleaded nor spoken to before the trial Court. According to him, the circumstances of the case as revealed in the petition itself would disclose that there was no possibility of the alleged statements of the revision petitioner being believed by the complainant and as such there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the revision petitioner, which led to the ceremony of being married.

4. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, it is not the question of belief or disbelief on the part of the complainant that is material, but only the intention behind the representations which led to the marriage and if the complaint is viewed from the said perspective, it can be seen that there was a strong prima facie case made out in the complaint for proceeding against the revision petitioner for offence under Sec.496 of the Indian Penal Code and what is to be looked into at this stage is only the averments contained in the complaint and the version spoken to by the first respondent in chief-examination made before the trial Court.

5. The principles governing the quashing of charge are well settled. The Court, at the stage of framing charge is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at a conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not that the relevant pleadings should be considered. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. The gist of circumstances to indicate as to what can lead to a conclusion for framing charge cannot be laid down. Everything will have to depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made.

6. Bearing in mind the principles aforementioned, the facts of the case may be analysed. The charge framed by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document