IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev.990 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 14, 2008 AJAY MAHAJAN ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. JS Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. HS Brar, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition challenges the order of charge and the charge- sheet. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while framing the charge, the court was required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case as they emanate not only from the FIR but also from the investigation report. Order of charge dated 11.3.2008 is a non- speaking order. Framing of charge is a serious matter in the context of the rights of an accused. Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that a perusal of the FIR and report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, indicate commission of rape. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. FIR (Annexure P-1) indicates that the petitioner had made it clear to the complainant that he was married and had two sons. It further stands admitted that on 19.11.2005, the complainant got married to the Criminal Rev.990 of 2008 2 petitioner at Katra (Jammu and Kashmir) in Bhumika Temple, according to Hindu rites and Mangal Sutra and certain gifts were exchanged. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, prima facie, consent of the complainant is indicated, is not without merit. Considering the order of charge, I find that the relevant factors, in the facts and circumstances of the case, have not been considered at all. Framing of charge is a serious matter for the accused and without doubt tarnishes the image and reputation of a person. In this view of the matter, it was required of the trial court to consider the relevant issues including the admitted case of the complainant and the final report submitted under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure. The same having not been done, I find the impugned order to be illegal. In view of the above, impugned order dated 11.3.2008 and the charge-sheet of even date are herby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, for consideration of the matter afresh. It is advised that relevant factors i.e. case stated by the complainant and the final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, in the context of the averment of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant was a consenting party and, therefore, offence of rape as defined under Section 375, Indian Penal Code, has not been committed, would be taken into account before considering the issue of framing of charge. The trial court is required to pass a speaking order. The petition stands disposed of. November 14, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE