Accused's defence and meticulous evidence appreciation are impermissible at the stage of framing criminal charges.

The Applicant, a Railway Ticket Collector (TTE), was accused by the victim of making inappropriate physical contact, forcibly taking her mobile number, and making improper remarks while she was traveling on Train No. 12069 on 05.04.2025

Following a written complaint, an FIR was registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. On 02.09.2025, the Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, framed charges against the Applicant under Sections 74 (criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty) and 75(1)(ii)(iv) (sexual harassment) of the BNS

The Applicant moved the High Court in revision, contending that the complaint was a retaliatory and motivated reaction to a fine (challan) of Rs. 325/- issued by him to the victim for traveling without a valid ticket

Whether the trial court erred in framing charges by failing to consider the Applicant’s defense that the FIR was a motivated reaction to a lawful fine

Whether the absence of independent eyewitnesses and the current stage of the trial (where the victim has already been examined) preclude interference under revisionary jurisdiction

The court primarily applied Sections 74 and 75 of the BNS, 2023, concerning offenses against the modesty of a woman

Procedurally, it relied on the scope of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. (analogous to BNSS provisions)

It followed the precedent in State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu (2017), which established that at the framing of charge, the court looks for "strong suspicion" and "prima facie material" rather than a final test of guilt

It further relied on State of M.P. v. Deepak (2019) and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan Bansal (2020), holding that the court should not conduct a "meticulous appreciation of evidence" or a "roving inquiry" at the charging stage

The Court reasoned that the stage of framing charges is intended only to evaluate whether prima facie material exists to proceed with a trial, not to arrive at a final conclusion regarding conviction

It observed that the Applicant’s defense—that the victim was ticketless and the complaint was malicious—is a matter of evidence that can only be adjudicated during the trial through cross-examination

The Court emphasized that it cannot sift through evidence as if conducting a full trial at this preliminary stage

Notably, the Court found that since the trial had already commenced and the victim had already been examined, there was no justification for exercise of revisionary power to disrupt the ongoing proceedings

It held that a prima facie case was established based on the charge-sheet and investigation materials, and the lack of independent eyewitnesses is not a sufficient ground to set aside charges before a full trial

The court declined to interfere with the Sessions Court's order dated 02.09.2025