At the stage of framing charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the court is only required to determine if a prima facie case exists against the accused and is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence as done during a trial.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court First, Varanasi on an application u/s 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge in Session Trial No.864 of 2025 (State vs. Karunashankar Gupta) arising out of Case Crime No.504 of 2020, Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi,by which learned trial court has rejected the application for discharge.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the F.I.R. was lodged by the victim herself but there was no allegation of commission of rape against the revisionist in the F.I.R. except an attempt to establish physical relations as a result F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 323, 406, 376/511 I.P.C. During the course of the investigation, the offence u/s 376/511 I.P.C. was not found to be made out as a result charge sheet was filed u/s 406 I.P.C. only. The victim made improvement in her statement before the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and also before the learned Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in which she stated that the revisionist established physical relations with her. In this way, the statement of the revisionist cannot be said to be reliable. Further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged after inordinate delay which creates doubt in the whole prosecution story. During the course of trial, learned trial court has summoned the revisionist u/s 376, 506 I.P.C. also for which he has moved and application for discharge but it has been rejected illegally without taking into consideration the contents of F.I.R. and also the statements of the victim, therefore, request to set aside the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the learned trial court and allow the revision.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the F.I.R. cannot be said to be an encyclopedia. In the F.I.R., there is version that the revisionist tried to establish physical relations with her and during the course of investigation when her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the I.O. she clearly stated that the revisionist established physical relations with her four times against her will and also he used to administer medicine. In the statement as recorded by the learned Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she has again made similar statement regarding establishment of physical relations by the revisionist with her without her consent. The learned trial court has considered the statement as made by the victim herself against the revisionist and then passed the order in question rejecting the application for discharge. Since, at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case is to be seen and the learned court is not required to appreciate the evidence or material on record as during the course of trial. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the contents of F.I.R., the statements of the victim as recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation and u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as recorded before the learned Magistrate, it transpires that the victim herself has made clear cut statement against the revisionist to establish physical relation with her against her will that is the reason learned trial court has rejected the application for discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. At the stage of framing of charge, the material on record is to be scrutinized by the learned court only to find out the prima facie case against the accused but it is not to be scrutinized as during the course of trial. The learned trial court has considered all these facts and the law on the point and then passed the order dated 17.03.2026.

There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order in question but this revision being dev