Delhi High Court – Orders
Narender Kumar vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 10 July, 2026
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 391/2026
NARENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bhuvneshwar Tyagi, Adv.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
ORDER
% 10.07.2026
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CRL.M.A. 19732/2026
1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 391/2026 & CRL.M.A. 19731/2026
2. This is a petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘BNSS’), seeking setting aside of the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by
the learned ASJ (FTSC)(RC), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC
No. 29/2025, arising out of FIR No. 31/2024, Police Station Subzi Mandi,
registered under Sections 376B/377/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC‘), whereby charges under Sections 376/377
IPC were directed to be framed against the petitioner.
3. Briefly stated, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 were married on
19.04.2008, and two daughters were born out of the wedlock. Subsequently,
matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, and they initiated divorce
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 21:20:28
proceedings by mutual consent. The first motion under Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘HMA’) was allowed
by the Family Court, Dwarka, on 04.11.2022, and a decree of divorce by
mutual consent was thereafter granted on 19.05.2023.
4. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 submitted a written complaint alleging
commission of offences by the petitioner in relation to incidents stated to have
taken place in April, 2022, May, 2023 and 18.06.2023, pursuant to which FIR
No. 31/2024 was registered on 13.01.2024 at Police Station Subzi Mandi
under Sections 376B/377/323/506 of the IPC.
5. Vide the impugned order dated 01.04.2026, the learned ASJ (FTSC)(RC),
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi held that charges under Sections
376/377 IPC were made out against the petitioner while declining to frame
charges under Sections 323/506 IPC.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has
framed charges against the present petitioner in a wholly mechanical, arbitrary
and illegal manner. He submits that there are glaring discrepancies between
the allegations made by the prosecutrix, the documents placed on record and
the statements of the other witnesses. He further submits that the prosecutrix
was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner and that the parties were
married and subsequently obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent
dated 19.05.2023. He further submits that thereafter, in connivance with the
co-accused, namely, Dinesh Chamoli, the prosecutrix has lodged a false case
against the petitioner.
7. Issue notice.
8. Learned APP for the State accepts notice and submits that all the facts
stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disputed questions of fact
and not of law, which cannot be decided at the stage of framing of charge
without the parties leading evidence.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 21:20:28
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that there
are contradictions between the allegations made by the prosecutrix, the
documents placed on record and the statements of the witnesses. It is further
submitted that the parties were married, subsequently obtained a decree of
divorce by mutual consent, and that the present case has been falsely lodged
against the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused, who has been placed
in Column No. 12 of the chargesheet.
11. The aforesaid submissions raise disputed questions of fact which cannot
be adjudicated at the stage of framing of charge. At this stage, the Court is
only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis
of the material placed on record, and the prosecution case cannot be rejected
at the threshold by presuming the allegations to be false. It may be noted that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its order in SLP(Crl) No. 9552/2021, titled
Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, has held that discrepancies between
the FIR and a subsequent statement may constitute a defence available to the
accused, however, such discrepancies cannot be made a ground for discharge
without the trial being conducted, as the veracity and effect of such
discrepancies are matters to be examined during the course of evidence and
not at the threshold.
12. The settled legal position governing the stage of framing of charge may
be usefully noticed. The Court is required to examine whether the facts
alleged by the prosecution and the material collected during investigation,
taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged
offence. The material on record is to be sifted only for the limited purpose of
determining whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the
accused; the Court is not to conduct a mini trial or adjudicate upon the
correctness of the allegations at this stage. In Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 21:20:28
Pradesh & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 609, the Supreme Court held:
“18. It is, thus, clear that while considering the
discharge application, the Court is to exercise its
judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has
been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings,
the Court is not to hold the mini trial by marshalling the
evidence.”
13. It thus emerges that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is
required to consider the material placed on record, hear the submissions
advanced on behalf of the prosecution and the accused, and determine
whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused. If the
Court finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, it shall discharge the accused by recording reasons. On the other
hand, if, upon such consideration, the Court is of the opinion that there is
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it is
required to frame the charge and proceed with the trial in accordance with
law.
14. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Court at the stage of framing
of charge is very limited. At this stage, the Court is not required to
meticulously examine the truth, veracity or effect of the evidence, nor can it
evaluate the probable defence of the accused. The Court is only required to
examine whether the material placed on record raises a strong suspicion
giving rise to a presumption that the accused has committed the alleged
offence. At the same time, the Court cannot act merely as a mouthpiece of
the prosecution. The principles governing the scope of discharge and
framing of charge under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. have been
authoritatively laid down in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal &
Anr., (1979) 3 SCC 4, and reiterated in State v. S. Selvi & Anr., (2018) 13
SCC 455, wherein the Supreme Court, quoting Sajjan Kumar v. CBI,
(2010) 9 SCC 368, laid down the following principles:
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 21:20:28
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 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
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 21:20:28
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.”
16. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated
01.04.2026. The learned Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned order after
considering the material placed on record and the submissions advanced by
the parties, and no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found therein
warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The
revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
17. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits
of the case.
18. Pending application(s), are accordingly dismissed.
19. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
MADHU JAIN, J
JULY 10, 2026/prg/Av
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 21:20:28
