2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Mahajan, J
NARENDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRL.REV.P.-3/2014

For a charge under Section 193 IPC, absence of the original document alleged to be false evidence is fatal. Departmental findings cannot substitute criminal proof. Revisional court cannot set aside a reasoned discharge without showing perversity.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 192 and 193 - Fabricating false evidence and punishment for false evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 195, 227, 228, 397, 401 and 482 - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - Test for framing of charge versus discharge - Necessity of primary evidence (original document) - Distinction between departmental proceedings and criminal trial - Effect of acquittal of main accused on related charge against process server.

(B) The court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge, the judge must determine whether a prima facie case exists and whether there is grave suspicion against the accused. Mere suspicion not sufficient. The probative value of material cannot be gone into at this stage, but the court must apply judicial mind to see if ingredients of offence are made out. The court can sift and weigh evidence for limited purpose. If two views are possible, accused may be discharged. (Paras 28-31)

(C) Departmental proceedings are administrative in nature, based on preponderance of probabilities, and cannot substitute criminal prosecution which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Findings in departmental proceedings, without independent proof in accordance with law, cannot form basis of criminal charges. (Paras 40-42)

(D) In a case under Section 193 IPC, absence of the original document alleged to be false evidence renders the prosecution inherently fragile. The document must form part of the record; oral assertions or departmental findings cannot fill the gap. (Paras 38-39)

Facts of the case:
A process server was accused of fabricating a service report on summons issued by a family court in another city, allegedly by inserting a locality name in a different ink, marking the summons to himself, handing them to the complainant's husband instead of serving the complainant personally, and making a false report of service. This was alleged to have enabled an ex-parte divorce decree. An FIR was registered against the husband for cheating and rape; during investigation, the process server was given a clean chit, but the magistrate summoned him under Section 193 IPC. The magistrate later discharged him for lack of evidence (original summons not seized, no forensic opinion, complainant admitted her signatures, no nexus with husband). The Sessions Court reversed that order, directing framing of charge, relying on earlier summoning orders and departmental penalty. The High Court set aside the Sessions Court order.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the Sessions Court exceeded revisional jurisdiction by substituting its opinion without addressing the flaws in the prosecution case. The discharge order by the magistrate was detailed and well-reasoned. The absence of the original summons, the complainant's admission of signatures, the acquittal of the main accused (where the trial court found the complainant had voluntarily signed the summons), and the failure to challenge the ex-parte divorce decree all militated against grave suspicion. The departmental findings could not be used as substantive evidence. The continuation of trial would be an abuse of process.

Issues: 1. Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge could interfere with the magistrate's discharge order merely on a different view, especially when the order was not perverse. 2. Whether the absence of the original document (the summons with alleged false endorsement) is fatal to a charge under Section 193 IPC. 3. Whether findings in departmental proceedings can be used as corroborative material for framing criminal charges. 4. Whether the acquittal of the main accused on the same facts (complainant's knowledge of summons) affects the case against the process server.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing charge/discharge, the court must examine whether prima facie material discloses grave suspicion. Where the core document (alleged false service report) is not placed on record, the offence cannot be proved; the prosecution cannot rely on oral assertions or departmental findings. The revisional court cannot set aside a discharge order without identifying perversity or illegality; it cannot substitute its opinion simply because another view is possible. The acquittal of the principal accused on the same factual matrix (complainant's voluntary signing of summons) further weakens the case against the process server.

Result: The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the petitioner is restored. Pending applications disposed of. (Paras 1-56)