The judgment clarifies the distinct legal standards for charge framing in private complaint cases, emphasizing the necessity of higher scrutiny and the right to cross-examine witnesses.

ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 of CrPC seeking setting aside of the order dated 06.07.2018 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CRL.R.P. No. 67/2018 wherein the Court dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner for setting aside of order dated 04.01.2018 in CC 2566/1/07 titled as “Suman Batra vs. O.P. Dawar” passed by Learned MM-02, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby charge under section 420 of IPC was ordered to be framed on 04.01.2018 against the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that Mrs. Suman Batra filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and Mrs. Meeta Galgotia for the commission of offence punishable under Section 420/406/468/471/34 r/w Section 120B IPC. Ld. MM vide order dated 17.09.2007 took the cognizance and adjourned the matter for the complainant evidence. The complainant examined herself as CW-1 and Sh. Rajender Kumar Batra as CW-2. On 14.11.2007 the learned MM ordered for an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. regarding the allegation of criminal conspiracy between the respondents. SHO PS Malaviya Nagar submitted the report dated 18.01.2008. Ld. MM vide order dated 01.03.2008 taking into account the complete testimony of the witnesses and the enquiry report inter alia held that a prima facie offence under Section 420/468/471 IPC is disclosed against the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly summoned.

3. In the pre-charge evidence the complainant examined CW-1 and CW-2. After pre-charge evidence vide order dated 04.01.2018, Ld. MM inter alia held that there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. It was further inter alia held that Section 468 and 471 IPC are not made out even prima facie as there is no specific allegation of forgery in the complaint and the pre-charge evidence.

4. The petitioner aggrieved of this filed Revision Petition bearing CR No. 67/2018 titled as O.P. Dawar Vs. Suman Batra. Learned ASJ inter alia held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to see the prima facie case and did not find any infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner aggrieved of this has filed the present petition and challenged the order of the Ld. MM and Ld. ASJ as totally erroneous and contrary to the proposition of law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the test applied by the Ld. MM and Ld. ASJ for framing of the charge in the present case, which is a warrant triable case instituted on a private complaint, is totally incorrect. The test for framing of the charge in such cases is entirely different from that applied in Section 227, 228, 239 and 240 Cr. P.C. Learned counsel submits that the Ld. MM has also fallen into grave error by inter alia holding that the suggestions put to the complainant witness in a pre-charge evidence are in the nature of defence to be established by the accused during trial, and at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused, cannot be considered by the Court. Learned counsel submits that therefore the order dated 04.01.2018 framing of the charge and the order of the Ld. ASJ confirming the same are liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated that the order of the Ld. MM framing of the charge under Section 420 IPC is in accordance with the law. However, learned counsel submits that the order discharging the accused under Section 468 and 471 IPC is erroneous. Learned APP for the state has also supported the order passed by the Ld. MM.

7. Before proceeding further it is necessary to advert to the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 regarding the private complaints. Chapter-XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides procedure about “Complaints to Magistrates”. The procedure relating to private complaint can be summed up as