At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case must be established, allowing for charges to be framed based on strong suspicion without detailed evaluation of evidence.

JUDGMENT

Manisha Batra, J.

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.02.2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula in Sessions case No. SC/129/22, titled as State v. Vinod Kumar and others, arising out of FIR No. 193 dated 26.10.2021, registered under Sections 376, 323, 406, 498A, 120B, 506 and 511 of the IPC at Police Station Kalka, Panchkula.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Namrata Saklani alleging that she was married to accused Vinod Kumar on 09.05.2016. Shortly after her marriage, her husband and other members of her in-laws family had started harassing her on account of demand of dowry and she was subjected to mental as well physical cruelty. She further alleged that her husband was not fully capable of performing sexual activities and the present petitioner, who is her brother-in-law, was fully aware of this fact. He was keeping an evil eye upon her and had tried to sexually harass her. Sometimes, he used to peep inside bathroom when she was present there. On a particular day, he even entered into her room in a naked condition and tried to commit rape upon her. She had somehow rescued herself from his clutches and had reported the incident to her in-laws, who instead of supporting her, had defended the petitioner and had extended threats to her. Her life had been made miserable and ultimately she was thrown out of her matrimonial house. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner along with co-accused was arrested and subsequently released on bail. After completion of investigation and usual formalities, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court. The case was committed to the Special Court and vide order dated 08.02.2023, the petitioner was chargesheeted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC, besides offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 354 and 506 read with Section 120B of the IPC. Feeling aggrieved of the charge as framed under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

3. I had heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the charge as framed under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC was not at all sustainable against the petitioner as all the allegations leveled against him as well as his family members were totally false and frivolous in nature. The offence under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC was not at all made out against the petitioner even on the basis of the allegations as leveled in the FIR, as per which, he had tried to force physical relation upon the complainant by entering into her room in a naked condition. No specific overt act, which could be stated to be falling under the definition of Section 375 IPC, had been attributed to him. While framing charge, the trial Court had taken the statement of the complainant as gospel truth. There was no occasion at all for the petitioner, who himself was a married person and living with his wife in the same premises, to make any attempt to ravish the complainant. He further argued that the trial Court by ignoring the fact that the allegations as leveled against the petitioner at this point, even if had gone un-rebutted, would not have warranted the conviction of the petitioner, has erred in framing charge under the aforesaid sections. With this broad spectrum of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned chargesheet was liable to be set aside to the extent to which, charge under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC had been framed and further argued that the present petitio