At stage of commitment to Court of Session, Magistrate is not required to delve into probative value of material on record or even delve into veracity of allegations levelled: P&H HC

Read Order: Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana & Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 28,  2022: While upholding the order of the lower court charging the petitioner additionally with the offence of rape and consequently, committing the matter to Court of Session, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that at the stage of commitment, the Magistrate is not required to delve into the probative value of the material on record or even delve into the veracity of the allegations levelled.

The Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul also observed, while making a reference to Section 209 of Cr.P.C, that a bare reading of the Section leaves no manner of doubt that if on the basis of the material before the Magistrate, it appears to him that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he shall have to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. 

In the case against the accused- petitioner, an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. was made before the lower court by the second respondent (herein) seeking addition/alteration of charges to include the offence of rape. The lower court, however, dismissed the said application and as a result, a criminal revision was filed by the second respondent challenging this dismissal before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala. The Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the lower court with the directions to decide it afresh in the facts and circumstances of the case, and frame charges, if required.

Pursuant to this order, the lower court passed an order wherein the petitioner was additionally charged under section 376 of IPC and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The accused-petitioner challenged this order of the lower court before the High Court in the present case. 

The petitioner’s counsel made submissions in support of the first order of the lower court wherein it dismissed the second respondent’s application under section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration or addition of charges. It was his case that there was no material on record to substantiate the allegations of rape/attempt to rape levelled by the complainant, hence, the addition of the charge of Section 376 of IPC was an erroneous decision. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside these orders. 

The Court observed at the outset, after perusing the impugned order, that the lower court merely committed the case to the court of Sessions and contrary to the petitioner’s argument, the lower court did not frame any charges under section 376 of IPC.

Further, addressing the petitioner’s submission to the effect that no evidence was available to establish the allegations of rape, the Court opined that not having material to substantiate the charge of rape was inconsequential at the stage of commitment to the Court of Sessions. The Court also observed that a perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR in question did reveal that the complainant alleged that the petitioner had attempted rape upon her in 2016.

“Thus, the contention of the learned counsel that no case was made out to attract the mischief of the offence of rape or attempt to rape is a matter which would be considered by the Court of Sessions and all the pleas in the said regard which are being raised by the learned counsel can always be raised before the Court of Sessions at the stage of framing of charges”, said the Bench. 

Thus, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, the Court concluded that no ground was made out for the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. in setting aside the impugned order. 

The petition was dismissed.