IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 800 of 2008 Kishan Chand Pawha & others. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand & another. …. Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for respondent no. 1. None for respondent no. 2. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for respondent no. 1. None for respondent no. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the order dated 08.1.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in Case No. 1644/2006 titled as State Vs. Kishan Pawha by which charges were framed against the petitioners u/s 147, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and also the revision order dtd. 15.11.2008 passed by the learned A.D.J., Haridwar/IIIrd Fast Track Court, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 119/2007 titled as Kishan Chand Pawha Vs. State of Uttarakhand preferred by the petitioners against the order of framing of charges dtd. 08.1.2007. The revision petition was also dismissed by the revisional court. 3. Brief facts in nutshell are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 09.2.2006 by respondent no. 2/the complainant stating therein that on 21.1.2006, when she was sitting in her shop, the accused petitioners came to her shop and assaulted her. The petitioners also threatenend her to leave the shop/Roorkee. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the matter was investigated by the police and eventually, final report was submitted against the petitioners. On further investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioners. On the basis of the chargesheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and charges were framed against the petitioners by the order dtd. 08.1.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the order of framing of charges passed by the learned magistrate, a revision was preferred by the petitioners, which was also dismissed by the Revisional Court on 15.11.2008. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner nos. 1 & 2 are the old ladies whereas petitioner no. 3 is living separately and residing outside the state of Uttarakhand whereas petitioner no. 4 is the married lady who is also living separately and residing in the State of Haryana. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the order of framing of charges u/s 147, 323, 504 & 506 IPC. He further contended that the allegations made in the complaint are the counter blast of a civil suit which was filed on 13.1.2006 against respondent no. 2 by the petitioners;the fact that at the time of submitting the final report, the evidence of the complainant has not been corroborated by the independent witnesses and later on at the time of further investigation, two witnesses namely Naresh & Mohan have supported the prosecution story. 6. The learned Brief Holder appearing for the State refuted the contentions and contended that the incident had been corroborated by the statements of the victim as well as by the aforesaid two witnesses namely, Naresh & Mohan. He further contended that there was sufficient ground to frame charges against the accused petitioners. 7. It is a well settled position of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court has not to examine and assess the meticulous details of the materials placed on record by the prosecution as alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of framing of charge, the court is to examine the materials placed on record only, with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offences alleged against the accused persons, is made out against the accused. It is also trite of law that when a petition is filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C before the High Court for quashing the charge framed against the accused, the Court should not interfere with the order of framing of charge unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice as to avoid abuse of process of court, the charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only sparingly and in rarest cases. Once the trial court has framed charges against the accused, the trial must proceed in accordance with law without unnecessary interference by the High Court (See State of Delhi Vs. Gyan Devi & others reported in 200 SCC (Cri) 1486). 8. In the instant case, respondent no. 2/the complainant and the two aforesaid witnesses have corroborated the prosecution story. Further, it is not the appropriate stage to assess and appreciate the prosecution evidence regarding believing or disbelieving the statements recorded by the prosecution. It is needless to say that where chargesheet has been filed before the court, the magistrate after appraisal of the evidence can ignore the opinion of the Investigating Officer and can take a different view from the view taken by the Investigating Officer but that is only permissible when the evidence on record permits the magistrate to do so. 9. It is also well settled position of law that even if the sole testimony of the victim/the complainant is sufficient to base the conviction and his evidence has to be seen in its own efficacy, the corroboration is not always required at the time of framing of charge. At the time of framing of the charge, the magistrate has to see as to whether the ground for framing the charge exists as provided u/s 228 Cr.P.C. the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj and other reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2041 has held as under: “11. The above-quoted paragraph from the judgment clearly disclose that the High Court was much influenced by the submission made on behalf of the defence that Kripalu Maharaj is a saintly old man, who has renounced the world, who is engrossed in spiritual activity and who has thousands/millions of disciples all over India and, therefore, he was not likely to indulge in the illegal acts alleged against him. It failed to appreciate that it is not unusual to come across cases where the so-called spiritual heads exploit young girls and women who become their disciples and come under their spell. Moreover, the reasoning of the High Court that it also does not stand to reason that a saintly man who has thousands/millions of disciples all over India would commit sexual intercourse with the pracharak of his cult in the presence of his disciples stands vitiated because of the vice of misreading the statements. The three girls have nowhere stated in their statements that R-2 had sexual intercourse with them in the presence of other 400disciples. The High Court gave too much importance to the conduct of the three victims and the delay in disclosing those illegal acts to their parents and the police. What the High Court has failed to appreciate is how a victim of such an offence will behave would depend upon the circumstances in which she is placed. It often happens that such victims do not complain against such illegal acts immediately because of factors like fear or shame or uncertainties about the reactions of their parents or husbands in case of married girls or women and the adverse consequences which, they apprehend, would follow because of disclosure of such acts. What the three girls had stated in their statements was not inherently improbable or unnatural. They have disclosed the reasons why they could not immediately complain about those illegal acts for such a long time. What the High Court has failed to appreciate is that while making a complaint to the police or giving their statements they were not required to give detailed explanations. As stated earlier, what the Court has to consider at the stage of framing of the charge is whether the version of the person complaining together with his/her explanation is prima facie believable or not. It was, therefore, not proper for the High Court to seek independent corroboration at that stage and to quash the charge and discharge the accused in absence thereof. It was also improper to describe the version of Sulakshana as false because no extensive injuries were noticed on her person while she was examined by a doctor on the basis of some observations made in Modi’s textbook on “Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology”. We do not think it proper to say anything further as, in the view that we are taking, the accused will have to face a trial and whatever observations we make now may cause some prejudice to them at the trial. We would only say that the High Court was wholly wrong in discarding the material placed before the Court as false and discharging the accused on that ground.” 10. Thus, I do not find any force in the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted at the end of the arguments that some of the petitioners are very old and infirm & are also residing outside the State of Uttarakhand, as such their presence may be exempted during the trial. He further submitted that the petitioners would appear before the trial court as and when required. 11. In view of the above, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that if the petitioners move an application to the trial court with the prayer to exempt their personal appearance in the said case on the ground of their infirmity as well as on the ground the they are residing far away from the place of incident, the trial court may consider their prayers and proceed in accordance with law. 12. In view of above and having regard to the facts stated as well as considering the legal position explained above, the petition is hereby dismissed in limine. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 23.12.2008 V.K.