# Chaman Mangla Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 268
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1066 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chaman-mangla-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48508
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Section
227
-
Application for discharge rejected
-
Indisputably, it is open to this Court to
quash the charges framed by the trial
court
and
discharge
the
accused
revisionist but the same cannot be done
by weighing the correctness, sufficiency
of the evidence. The principle to be
adopted in such cases should be that if
the entire evidence produced by the
prosecution is to be believed would it
constitute the offence or not. It is only
at
the
stage
of
the
trial
that
truthfulness,
sufficiency
and
acceptability of the evidence can be
adjudged. Therefore, it will not be
proper
to
truncate
or
snip
the
proceeding at the stage of framing of
charges against the revisionist when
perusal of the statement of victim said
to have been recorded under Section
161 & 164 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that
the revisionist made sexual intercourse
with the complainant for a continuous
period of two years on false pretext of
marriage.

Settled law that at the stage of Section 227/
228 of the Cr.P.c the court cannot hold a
mini trial and sift through the entire
evidence but has only to see as to whether
on the basis of the evidence offence is made
out against the accused or not and only
where no offence is made out even from the
entire evidence, then the accused can be
discharged.

Criminal Revision rejected. ( Para 13) (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

## Text

268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintaining herself and daughters, while
her husband's economic condition is quite
good,
wife
would
be
entitled
to
maintenance.

25. In view of the aforesaid
discussion,
I
over-rule
the
argument
advanced by Sri Chakravarty, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 and I hold
that the wife-revisionist is entitled for
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

26. The other point is very important to
note that the court below has considered the
income of the opposite party no.2 as
Rs.30,000/- per month whereas the cross
examination of D.W.-1 (opposite party no.2)
indicates that he has admitted on record that
his salary is Rs.47,000/-, thus, the finding in
respect of income of the opposite party no.2
is running contrary to the records available.

27.
In
the
submission of Sri
Chakravarty, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2, has no legal force wherein he has
submitted that under Section 397 Cr.P.C.,
which is revisional jurisdiction, the court has
no power to re-appreciate the evidence. The
High Court has ample power to see the
illegality, perversity and error committed by
the court below. In the present case, the issue
of divorce under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been
decided and revisionist has been refused the
maintenance. In the present case, the finding
runs against the record and not in accordance
with law. The Court has ample power to
correct the order and take appropriate steps
under the revisional jurisdiction; thus, the
argument of Sri Chakravarty has no force.

28. In my opinion, once it is admitted
on record that the salary of opposite party
no.2 is Rs.47,000/-, the court below passed
erroneous order by considering the income of
opposite party no.2 as Rs.30,000/- only.

29. In view of the aforesaid factual and
legal aspect, I am of the view that the order
impugned dated 22.05.2018 is erroneous and
cannot survive in the eyes of law, therefore, I
set aside the impugned order for the aforesaid
reasons.

30. The application for maintenance
filed by revisionist no.1 is allowed and it
is observed that she will be entitled for
Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance. She
will be given maintenance Rs.1,500/- from
11.05.2007 to January, 2010; Rs.2,000/-
from February 2010 to December 2014;
Rs.4,000/- from January 2015 to May
2018 and Rs.7,000/- from January 2018
onwards.

31. Insofar as
the prayer for
enhancement of maintenance in favour of
opposite party no.2 is concerned, I am not
inclined to pass any order for the reason that I
have awarded Rs.7,000/- per month to the
revisionist no.1 reckoning the total salary of
the opposite party No. 2 as Rs.47,000/-; thus
total Rs.7,000 (in favour of revisionist no.1) +
Rs.5,000 (in favour of revisionist no.2) =
Rs.12,000/- of total salary of Rs.47,000/-, is
justified.
The
order
impugned
dated
22.05.2018 is set aside in part and it is
modified according to the observation made
above.
----------
(2022)05ILR A268
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1066 of 2022

Chaman Mangla ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
5 All. Chaman Mangla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
269
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, Sri Gopal Swarup
Chaturvedi (Senior Adv.), Sri Man Singh
Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Harsh Vardhan Deshwar

Criminal
Law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Section
227
-
Application for discharge rejected
-
Indisputably, it is open to this Court to
quash the charges framed by the trial
court
and
discharge
the
accused
revisionist but the same cannot be done
by weighing the correctness, sufficiency
of the evidence. The principle to be
adopted in such cases should be that if
the entire evidence produced by the
prosecution is to be believed would it
constitute the offence or not. It is only
at
the
stage
of
the
trial
that
truthfulness,
sufficiency
and
acceptability of the evidence can be
adjudged. Therefore, it will not be
proper
to
truncate
or
snip
the
proceeding at the stage of framing of
charges against the revisionist when
perusal of the statement of victim said
to have been recorded under Section
161 & 164 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that
the revisionist made sexual intercourse
with the complainant for a continuous
period of two years on false pretext of
marriage.

Settled law that at the stage of Section 227/
228 of the Cr.P.c the court cannot hold a
mini trial and sift through the entire
evidence but has only to see as to whether
on the basis of the evidence offence is made
out against the accused or not and only
where no offence is made out even from the
entire evidence, then the accused can be
discharged.

Criminal Revision rejected. ( Para 13) (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. St. Vs S. Selvi, (2018) 13 SCC 455
2. Sajjan Kumar Vs CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368

3. Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs St. of Goa & ors.: 2019
SCC OnLine SC 1053

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)

1.

Heard
Mr
Gopal
Swarup
Chaturvedi,
learned
Senior
Counsel
assisted by Ms Somya Chaturvedi, learned
counsel for the revisionist, Mr Harsh
Vardhan Deshwar, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 and Mr L. M. Singh,
learned AGA for the State and perused the
record.

2. This Criminal Revision is directed
against the order dated 15.02.2022 passed
by learned Addl. District and Sessions
Judge,
FTC-I
Mathura,
whereby
the
application for discharge under Sections
498-A, 504, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act moved by the
revisionist u/s 227 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Case
No. 287 of 2021 (State Vs Chaman
Mangla) arising out of Case Crime No. 771
of 2020, has been rejected.

3. Initially an FIR vide Case Crime
No. 771 of 2020 was registered against the
revisionist and his father and mother by the
complainant/opposite
party
no. 2
on
08.11.2020, under Sections 498-A, 504,
506, 376 IPC and Section 3⁄4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.

4. Prosecution story as narrated in the
FIR is that the revisionist was to open a
cloth-showroom and thereafter he would
marry the complainant within a year of
opening of showroom. Revisionist is said to
have
called
the
complainant
at
his
residence and introduced her with his
parents. Seeing her, his parents also said
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that they liked her and as soon as the
showroom is opened they would marry
complainant with his son (revisionist). It is
further averred that revisionist always
called the complainant at his residence in
presence of his parents and used to treat the
complainant as his wife and had also made
sexual relationship on that pretext; and
when two years had elapsed, neither the
showroom was opened nor the revisionist
solemnized marriage with complainant,
thereafter, the complainant is said to have
asked the parents of the revisionist to get
their marriage solemnized upon which the
parents of the revisionist said that opposite
party no. 2 used to visit their house as their
daughter-in-law and soon they would get
the marriage of opposite party no. 2
solemnized with revisionist. It is further
averred that in the month of October,
complainant again asked the revisionist and
his parents to solemnize the marriage as the
revisionist is harassing her mentally and
physically for almost two years and in case
the marriage is not solemnized within a
month, the complainant would take legal
action against them. It is further alleged
that thereafter, parents of the revisionist
demanded Rs. 25 Lacs for marriage and
also said that if the parents of the
complainant is able to meet the demand of
revisionist, they would get their marriage
solemnized, failing which the marriage
would not be finalized. It is further alleged
that when the complainant asked the
parents of the revisionist that the revisionist
is making physical relationship with her for
the last two years, thereupon she was
abused in filthy words, threatened and also
driven out.

5. After registration of the FIR,
Investigating
Officer
recorded
the
statement
of
complainant
and
other
material witnesses under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and the victim was also medically
examined at CHC Kosi Kalan, District
Mathura on 8.11.2020 from where she was
referred to District Women Hospital,
Mathura, where the complainant/victim has
refused
for
her
internal
medial
examination.

6. The statement of the victim under
Section 164 Cr. P. C. was also recorded
before the Magistrate. The extract of
statement is as under:-

"ihfM+rk us l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd esjh
mez 22 o"kZ gSA eS ch0,0 dj jgh gwaA eS peu iq=
psrjke dks fiNys nks lky ls tkurh gwaA eSa tgka
V~;wlu i<+kus tkrh Fkh] ogha peu eq>s jkLrs esa feyrk
FkkA peu vkSj eS nksuksa Qslcqd ij nksLr cusA gekjs
chp esa ckrphr gqbZ vkSj ckn es ?kj vkuk tkuk 'kq:
gks x;kA peu ds ?kj vlds firk psrjke o ekrk
'kksHkuk FkhA peu mudh mifLFkfr esa eq>s ?kj ykrk
FkkA oks yksx eq>ls [kkus dh QjekbZ'k djrs Fks tks oks
dgrs Fks] eS cukrh FkhA peu ds ekrk firk dks Hkh eSa
ilan FkhA vkSj oks vius csVs dh 'kknh eq>ls djokus
dks jkth FkhA peu ds eak cki eq>ls dgrs Fks fd tSls
gh peu dk 'kks:e [qkysxk] ge rqe nksuksa dh 'kknh
djok nsaxsA bl vkM+ esa peu eq>ls dbZ ckj 'kkjhfjd
laca/k cuk;sA dbZ ckj gksVy o Q~ySV esa ysdj x;kA
nks o"kZ chr tkus ds ckn tc u 'kks:e [kqyk vkSj u
'kknh dh ckr vkxs c<+h rks eSusa peu ds ekrk firk ls
ckr dhA rks peu ds ekrk firk cksys fd vius ?kj
okyksa ls cksyks dh 25 yk[k dk bartke dj ysaA gekjs
csVs ds fy, vPNs fj'rs vk jgs gSA rc eSusa mudks
crk;k fd eSa xjhc ?kj ls gwa firkth thfor ugha gS
ge 3&4 yk[k gh [kpZ dj ldrs gS rks lds eak cki
us 'kknh djus ls euk dj fn;kA eq>s jaMh tSls 'kCnksa
ls lacksf/kr fd;kA eSusa vius Hkkb d`".kk dks tc ;s
ckr crkbZ rks og Hkh peu ds ekrk firk ds ikl
fj'rk ysdj x;k rks mUgksaus dksbZ tokc ugha fn;k tc
eSuas peu dks ,d fnu ckn dky fd;k rks mlus eq>s
viuh nqdku ij cqyk;k vkSj eq>s cnuke djus dh
/kedh nsus yxkA mlds ikl esjh dqN QksVkst gS ftls
ok;jy djus dh /kedh nsus yxkA blds vykok peu
us eq>s dqN u'khyh xksyh nsdj dgus yxk bUgsa [kk ys
vkSj ej tk exj eq>s Hkwy tkA eSusa oks u'khyh xksfy;ka
?kj vkdj [kk yh ftlls eS csgks'k gks xbZA eSusa vxys
fnu vius HkkbZ o eak ds lkFk iqfyl esa fjiksZV ntZ
djok;hA peu vkSj mlds firk psrjke o ekrk 'kksHkuk
5 All. Chaman Mangla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
271
us esjs lkFk ekufld o 'kkjhfjd izrkM+uk dh gS eS
pkgrh gw fd peu dks ;k rks ltk feys ;k fQj eq>ls
'kknh djsA"

7. After concluding the investigation,
the Investigating Officer submitted the
charge sheet on 25.11.2020 only against the
revisionist under Sections 498-A, 504, 506,
376 IPC and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act, upon
which cognizance was taken by the court
below
vide
order
dated
23.12.2020.
Thereafter, revisionist is said to have
moved an application for discharge on
7.9.2021, which was objected by the
complainant/opposite party no. 2 by filing
her objection on 30.09.2021. The court
below after taking into account the entire
material available on record rejected the
discharge
application
filed
by
the
revisionist vide impugned order dated
15.2.2022 and fixed the next date for
framing of charge against the revisionist
under Section 376, 504, 506 IPC and
Section 4 of the D.P. Act. It is this order
which is subject matter of challenge before
this Court.

8. It is contended by learned counsel
for the revisionist that the trial court has
rejected the discharge application without
considering the fact that the victim is major
and allegation of physical relation between
the revisionist and O.P. No. 2 was a
consensual physical relationship, therefore,
no offence under Section 376 IPC is made
out. It is further contended by learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist
that
the
impugned order has been passed without
considering the material on record and
while passing the order impugned court
below has not applied it's judicial mind. He
further submits that the impugned order
rejecting the application for discharge is
wholly illegal, capricious and against
weight of evidence on record. It is further
submitted
that
there
are
several
contradictions between the version of the
FIR and the statements of the informant
said to have been recorded under Section
161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the order has been
passed illegally in a routine manner and
without application of judicial mind, and
therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 as well
as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State
submitted that record reveals that the
revisionist
had
established
physical
relationship with the complainant on false
promise of marriage and when he refused
to marry present prosecution has been
initiated against the revisionist. Material
available on record reveals that O.P.
No.2/complainant had entered into physical
relationship
with
the
revisionist
on
misconception of fact and the said consent
cannot be considered as a voluntary
consent under Section 90 of the Indian
Penal Code; that presumption can be drawn
under Section 114 A of the Indian Evidence
Act
that
the
revisionist
had
sexual
intercourse on false assurance of marriage
and the charge sheet has rightly been
submitted under Sections 376 IPC along
with other sections of IPC.

10. The principles for framing of
charge and discharge under Sections 227,
228 and 239 Cr.P.C. have been summarized
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment,
State Vs S. Selvi, (2018) 13 SCC 455
wherein it has been held that if on the basis
of material on record, the Court prima facie
forms an opinion that the accused may have
committed the offence, it can frame
charges. At the time of framing of charge,
the Court is required to proceed on
presumption that the material produced by
the prosecution is true. At that stage, the
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court is not expected to go deep into the
matter and hold that the material produced
does not warrant conviction.

11. In Sajjan Kumar Vs CBI, (2010)
9 SCC 368, Hon'ble Apex Court on
consideration of the various decisions about
the scope of Section 227 and 228, laid
down the following principles:

"(I) The Judge while considering
the question of framing the charges under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. 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 Section 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."

12. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs State of Goa
and other: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1053
has taken note of case law in detail while
explaining the powers under Section
227/228 Cr.P.C. and reiterated the principle
as enumerated in State Vs Selvi (supra) and
Sajjan Kumar versus C.B.I., (2010) 9 SCC
368. In para 32 it has been held as under:-

"32. Applying the law laid down
by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and
considering the scope of enquiry at the
stage of framing of the charge under
Section 227/228 Cr.P.C., we are of the
opinion that the submissions made by the
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant on merits, at this stage, are not
required to be considered. Whatever
5 All. Ram Sahai Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
273
submissions are made by the learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant are on merits are required to be
dealt with and considered at an appropriate
stage during the course of the trial. Some of
the submissions may be considered to be
the defence of the accused. Some of the
submissions made by the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant on the
conduct of the victim/prosecutrix are
required to be dealt with and considered at
an appropriate stage during the trial. The
same are not required to be considered at
this stage of framing of the charge. On
considering the material on record, we are
of the opinion that there is more than a
prima facie case against the accused for
which he is required to be tried. There is
sufficient ample material against the
accused and therefore the learned Trial
Court has rightly framed the charge against
the accused and the same is rightly
confirmed
by
the
High
Court.
No
interference of this Court is called for."

13. Indisputably, it is open to this
Court to quash the charges framed by the
trial court and discharge the accused
revisionist but the same cannot be done
by weighing the correctness, sufficiency
of the evidence. The principle to be
adopted in such cases should be that if
the entire evidence produced by the
prosecution is to be believed would it
constitute the offence or not. It is only at
the stage of the trial that truthfulness,
sufficiency and acceptability of the
evidence can be adjudged. Therefore, it
will not be proper to truncate or snip the
proceeding at the stage of framing of
charges against the revisionist when
perusal of the statement of victim said to
have been recorded under Section 161 &
164 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that the
revisionist made sexual intercourse with
the complainant for a continuous period
of two years on false pretext of marriage.

14. Thus, in view of the law as has
been explained in several decisions and,
the fact that the trial Court having
considered the record of the case and
evidence brought by the prosecution has
formed an opinion prima facie of
involvement
of
the
revisionist
in
commission of offence, the court below
has rightly dismissed the argument for
discharge of revisionist. There is no
illegality, perversity or impropriety in the
impugned order. There is no jurisdictional
error in the impugned order. The revision
is
not
sustainable
and
is
hereby
dismissed.

Office is directed to certify the copy
of this order to the court below through
learned Sessions Judge, concerned.
----------
(2022)05ILR A273
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1198 of 2022

Ram Sahai Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rajiv Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Manish Tandon

Civil Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Sections 177, 178 & 179- The
normal rule is that the offence shall
ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a