MANENDRA PRASAD TIWARI versus AMIT KUMAR TIWARI & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 12-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
MANENDRA PRASAD TIWARI
v.
AMIT KUMAR TIWARI & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1210 of 2022)
AUGUST 12, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.376 – Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) – ss. 5 and 6 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – ss. 397, 482 – Discharge of Accused – ‘X’,
delivered a baby and thereafter committed suicide by hanging herself
– FIR was registered for the offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC and
the provision of the POCSO Act against the respondent – The special
Judge framed charges for the abovementioned offences against the
respondent – The accused questioned the legality and validity of
the order of framing charge by filing the Criminal Revision on the
ground that the deceased and the accused had developed intimacy
for each other and were in a relationship – The High Court allowed
the Criminal Revision Petition and discharge the accused from the
charges – The High Court discharged the accused charged with the
offence of rape on the ground of delay in the registration of the
FIR – On appeal, held: The High Court recorded no specific finding
as regards the age of the deceased – In a case praying for quashing
of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should
be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be
believed, would it constitute an offence or not – The framing of
charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be
applied – The Court should not interfere with the order unless there
are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid
abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the
accused needs to be quashed – High Court’s conclusion about the
age of the deceased and also as regards the delay in lodging the
FIR besides being a premature assessment of evidence, is also
attributable to the wrong premises on which the High Court’s
reasoning is based.
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 174
174
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
175
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1. It was mainly argued before the High Court that
on the date of the commission of the offence, the deceased was
major and was in a relationship with the accused on her own free
will and volition. The accused could not be said to have committed
any offence as alleged. Surprisingly, even the State, to a certain
extent, supported the submission canvassed on behalf of the
accused before the High Court. What is relevant to note is that
although the High Court has devoted two full paragraphs for the
purpose of recording the submissions as regards the age of the
deceased, yet ultimately no specific finding has been recorded in
that regard by the High Court. The High Court proceeded
altogether on a different footing. The High Court thought fit to
discharge the accused of all the charges on the ground that there
was delay in lodging the FIR and the entire case put up by the
parents of the deceased was doubtful. The impugned order of
the High Court is utterly incomprehensible. This Court is yet to
come across a case where the High Court has thought fit to
discharge an accused charged with the offence of rape on the
ground of delay in the registration of the FIR. [Paras 19 &
20][189-H; 190-A-C]
2. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High
Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a
revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the
charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done
by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. In a
case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be
adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence
produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute
an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and
acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a
charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more
succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court is to examine the
materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of
commission of offence alleged has been made out against the
accused person. It is also well settled that when the petition is
filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for
MANENDRA PRASAD TIWARI v. AMIT KUMAR TIWARI &
ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
the qu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.