High Court of Delhi

Rochish Mathur vs. State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr.

MANU/DE/2538/2022

19.07.2022

Criminal

Court while passing an order on charges is not expected to weigh the evidence as if trial is being conducted

Present revision is directed against the order on charge and consequent framing of charge against the Petitioner, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order, while recording a prima facie finding, has framed charges against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Section 10 read with Section 9 (l) (m) (n)/12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, 2012) as well as offences punishable under Sections 354/354A/354B/506/509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

In any case, the Petitioner may have strong defence for trial, on the basis of the documents relied upon by him, but those documents at this stage cannot completely absolve him from the charges framed against him. Since the submissions made by the Petitioner required deeper scrutiny and, therefore, without making any comments on the truthfulness of the submissions, it is observed that the same is required to be considered during the course of trial and at this stage, this court does not find any justification to interfere into the order passed by the Trial court on charge and the order of framing of charges.

It is a settled legal position that the Court while passing an order on charges is not expected to weigh the evidence as if trial is being conducted. The test is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. In the instant case the allegations against the petitioner are very grave. Any MoU or no objection submitted by the wife of the petitioner, would not be of any help to absolve the petitioner from the charges made against him. There is no substance in the instant revision petition. Petition dismissed.

Tags : Charge Framing of Legality

Share :