The power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and listed several principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly with regard to quashing of charge.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State by means of Video-Conferencing and perused the record.

2. This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 410 of 2018 (State Vs. Mohit Sharma) arising out of Case Crime No. 1426 pf 2016 under Sections 363, 376-D, 377 IPC & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. New Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar whereby applicant's discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant has not committed the alleged offence. Impugned order dated 2.12.2021 has been wrongly passed. There is no evidence against the applicant so charge cannot be framed against him, hence, this Petition.

4. Per-contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submitted that victim in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has implicated the applicant. Statement of victim is itself sufficient for framing the charge against the applicant.

5. In Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another (2012) 9 SCC 460, Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para 19 that at the initial stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the Court has to see is that the matter on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage.

6. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement is quoted herein below:

"19. At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage. We may refer to the well-settled law laid down by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533] : (SCC pp. 41-42, para 4)

“4. Under Section 226 of the Code while opening the case for the prosecution the Prosecutor has got to describe the charge against the accused and state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter comes at the initial stage the duty of the court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to pass thereafter an order either under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. If ‘the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing’, as enjoined by Section 227. If, on the other hand, ‘the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which— … (b) is exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused’, as provided in Section 228. Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of