Sanoj Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 CRR-3108-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV ON THE 19th OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3108 of 2023 SANOJ SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vikram Pippal - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State. Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav - Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER

The present criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed challenging the order dated 26.05.2023 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge has been dismissed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No.154/2022 and charge under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 419 and 506 Part II of IPC has been

framed.

2. As per prosecution story, the prosecutrix, who is posted on the post of Assistant Professor (Contractual) in the Computer Science Engineering Department of Engineering Institute in Jiwaji University, made a complaint that for marriage purpose she created an account on matrimonial site i.e. Jeevan Sathi in the year 2013. One person namely Satyaprakash Tiwari

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/29/2026 10:25:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3315

2 CRR-3108-2023 contacted the prosecutrix via telephone and thereafter on false pretext of marriage made physical relationship with her. It was alleged that after two years i.e. in January, 2015 accused Satyaprakash came to the house of prosecutrix and made physical relationship. Thereafter the accused Satyaprakash started sending obscene messages to the prosecutrix. The allegation levelled upon present petitioner is that he came in contact with the prosecutrix by representing himself to be unmarried and holding the post of Constable in M.P. Police. The petitioner thereafter proposed her for marriage and called her to Ujjain to meet his parents, then the prosecutrix went to Ujjain where on the pretext of meeting with family members, he took her to a hotel near Mahakal Temple, Ujjain, and made physical relations with her. Thereafter the prosecutrix was sent back to Gwalior by giving assurance of

marriage without there being any meeting with the family of the petitioner. It was also alleged that petitioner asked for Rs.51,000/- from the prosecutrix in between 11.04.2019 to 24.04.2019 and the said amount was sent by the prosecutrix in the account of the petitioner and when the prosecutrix insisted for marriage, then the petitioner denied by replying that he is already married and having a child.

3. It was also mentioned in the complaint of the prosecutrix that a man namely Bajranglal contacted her on 06.06.2021 through matrimonial site representing himself to be an employee of Railway police and presently posted at Bhopal. Thereafter, Bajranglal sought photo of prosecutrix and her elder sister for procuring them job in railway police. It was further alleged that Bajranglal demanded Rs. 2 lac and after due precaution she transferred

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/29/2026 10:25:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3315

3 CRR-3108-2023 Rs.1 lac in his account. Thereafter Bajranglal started threatening her. It was also alleged that Bajranglal gave her phone number to one Shivkumar Sharma who represented himself to be Constable in RPF. He also tried to cheat her and then she realized that she is being cheated by all the accused i.e. Satyaprakash Tiwari, Sanoj Sharma and Bajranglal by committing conspiracy.

4. On the basis of the allegations levelled in the complaint, FIR has been registered under Sections 376, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC at police Station, University, Distt. Gwalior, at crime No.152/2022. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

5. After committal of the case, an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner for discharging him, but the same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.05.2023 and learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 419 and 506 Part II of IPC which is under challenge in the present revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation does not prima facie constitute the offence against the petitioner. On perusal of the entire charge-sheet, there is no document which reflects the commission of offence by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on perusal of the FIR, it is clear that story of prosecution is concocted and prosecutrix has falsely implicated the petitioner. In the test reports of the prosecutrix by the RFSL, Gwalior, it has been mentioned that spots of semen are found on the

underwear, vaginal and vulval swab of the prosecutrix, even when the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/29/2026 10:25:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3315

4 CRR-3108-2023 incident as per the prosecutrix story is of the year 2019 and the same have been taken on 19.04.2022 after almost 3 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from perusal of the FIR it is reflected that similar allegations have been levelled against three persons during the period from 2013 to 2022 which creates suspicion and doubt. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order dated 26.05.2023 dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. be set aside and petitioner be discharged from the charges.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned order and prays for rejection of the revision petition. It is submitted that at the stage of framing of charges, only prima facie case is to be seen. Material on record discloses the offence for which charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner regarding commission of rape on the pretext of marriage. Learned trial Court has correctly passed the order after considering the statements and documents on record. Therefore, instant revision petition is nothing but a gross misuse of process of law and needs to be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

9. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer the scope of exercise of power under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of powers under

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/29/2026 10:25:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3315

5 CRR-3108-2023 Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and held thus :-

"10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:

"227. Discharge.--If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.

11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him."

10. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down certain guiding principles for discharge as under :-

"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:

(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/29/2026 10:25:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3315

6 CRR-3108-2023 upon the facts of each case.

(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.

(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."

11. In the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

"17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is required to consider the "record of the case" and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the section exists, then the court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/29/2026 10:25:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3315

7 CRR-3108-2023 accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There is a fine distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section 227 is the expression of a definite opinion and judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code."

12. At this stage of framing of charges, the court is required to examine the police report, documents filed therewith, and the submissions of the prosecution and the accused, solely for the limited purpose of assessing whether the material discloses the existence of a prima facie case or raises a grave suspicion against the accused. The court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or determine the likelihood of conviction. Even where two views are possible, if the material on record gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that the accused has committed the offence, the court must proceed to frame charges and leave the matter to be tested during trial.

13. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC should be slow, cautious, and circumspect in interfering with order framing charges. Interference at this interlocutory stage is not the norm but an exception, as premature interference may stifle legitimate prosecution and impede the administration of criminal justice. The revisional court does not function as an appellate forum at this stage and must refrain from substituting its own opinion for that of the trial court where the trial court's view is a

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/29/2026 10:25:21 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3315

8 CRR-3108-2023 possible and reasonable view based on the material available on record.

14. In the present case, the learned trial Court considering the statement of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that it prima facie discloses the ingredients of the offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 419 and 506 Part II of IPC.

15. In view of the aforesaid, learned Court below has not committed any perversity or illegality in dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. There is no jurisdictional error committed by the Court below. Hence, the order passed by the learned Court below is affirmed and the revision petition is dismissed.

(PUSHPENDRA YADAV) JUDGE

ms/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/29/2026 10:25:21 AM