Charges cannot stand without material linking each offence’s ingredients to the record.

The petitioner challenged the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer’s order framing charges under Sections 137(2), 74 and 78(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sections 7/8 and 11/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 84 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

The prosecution alleged that the complainant’s 15-year-old daughter left home and was later found travelling with the petitioner

In her police statement, she said she had asked the petitioner to go to Ajmer to marry, voluntarily accompanied him, and that no physical or sexual relationship or wrongful act occurred

In her statement before the Magistrate, she likewise said she went voluntarily and that the petitioner neither threatened her nor committed any wrong act

The petitioner argued that the charge-framing order did not explain how the investigation material disclosed the ingredients of each offence

1. Whether the Sessions Judge’s order framing the various charges disclosed a sufficient, offence-specific factual basis and reflected judicial application of mind

2. Whether, on the investigation material available when charges were framed, the prosecutrix’s statements and the other material provided a prima facie foundation for the charged offences

Under the BNSS provisions governing revision and consideration of charge, the court at the charge stage must sift the material for the limited purpose of determining whether it discloses the foundational facts and sufficient ground to proceed; it must neither conduct a mini-trial nor mechanically endorse the police report

Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366, permits limited sifting and weighing of material to determine whether a prima facie case exists; Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SCC 722, does not require a lengthy charge order, but does not excuse mechanical decision-making

The order must show a discernible connection between the material and the essential ingredients of each offence

As described by the Court, BNS Section 74 concerns assault or criminal force with the requisite intent or knowledge; stalking under Section 78 requires the specified conduct; POCSO Sections 7 and 11 require, respectively, physical contact with sexual intent or specified sexual-harassment conduct; and kidnapping from lawful guardianship under BNS Section 137(2) requires taking or enticing a child from the guardian’s keeping without consent

The Court found that the impugned order merely stated that a prima facie case existed, without identifying material supporting the distinct statutory ingredients of the offences

The prosecutrix’s recorded statements said that she initiated the journey, went voluntarily, and experienced no threat, intimidation, sexual contact, or other wrongful act; the order did not address those statements or identify independent material supporting the charges

The Court stressed that it was not deciding the ultimate truth or evidentiary value of the statements, but whether the material before the Sessions Judge when charges were framed furnished a legally discernible foundation for them

It concluded that the required offence-by-offence consideration was absent.

The order dated 22 June 2026 framing charges was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner was discharged from the specified offences

The Court confined its observations to the legality of the charge order on the material then available and did not adjudicate the evidentiary value of material otherwise admissible in law