Crl. Revn. No. 3203 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No. 3203 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.12.2009 Bhushan Lal s/o Sat Pal , r/o village Baram, District Kurukshetra. ....... Revision petitioner Versus State of Haryana ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate for the revision-petitioner. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.09.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which it framed charge against the accused (now revision-petitioner), for the offences, punishable under Sections 376, 363, 366, 328 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Crl. Revn. No. 3203 of 2009 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that from 01.01.2009 to 25.02.2009, in the area of village Baram, the accused committed rape with the prosecutrix, without her consent by threatening her that he will kill her brother and her ailing mother. He also kidnapped the prosecutrix on 24.03.2009 at about 8.00 PM, with an intent to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse, by administering some stupefying drug. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, he was challaned. 3. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record of the case, the trial Court framed the charge, against the accused, vide the order impugned. 4. Feeling dis-satisfied, the instant revision- petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, has submitted that there was no material, on record, to constitute the offence, punishable under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further submitted that, as such, charge under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, could Crl. Revn. No. 3203 of 2009 3 not be framed against the accused-petitioner. He has further submitted that even the ingredients for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, were not fulfilled from the material placed, on record. He has further submitted that the order of the Court below, framing the charge for the offences, punishable under Sections 328 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that at the time of framing the charge, the Court is not required to scrutinize the material placed, on record, so meticulously as it is required to scrutinize the same, at the time of final decision of the case. At that time, the Court is only required to sift the material for the limited purpose, to come to the conclusion, whether prima facie an offence was constituted, under a particular provision of law or not. The prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence. There is a copy of the application, moved by Angrej Singh son of Mehga Ram, whose daughter, is the prosecutrix, on the basis whereof the case was registered. In the said application, Crl. Revn. No. 3203 of 2009 4 which is Annexure P/3, he in clear-cut terms stated that on 24.03.2009, at about 8 PM, the accused took his daughter alongwith him by administering her some intoxicating substance. The allegations, contained in the application, (Annexure P-3), therefore, clearly, constitute an offence punishable under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. Not only this, from the material placed, on record, it was also evident that the accused-petitioner allegedly kidnapped the prosecutrix, with an intent to seduce her to illicit intercourse. The offences punishable under Sections 328 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code were, thus, prima-facie, constituted. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, that the offences, punishable under Section 328 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, were not prima-facie constituted , does not carry any substance and the same stands rejected. 8. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. 9. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE December 10, 2009 dinesh