Contradictions in prosecutrix's statement and absence of independent corroboration are matters of trial, not grounds for discharge.

The petitioner (Accused No. 2), the wife of the main accused Mohd. Ayaz, challenged a Trial Court order dated 09.02.2023 framing charges against her under Sections 344 and 506 of the IPC.

The prosecutrix alleged that in 2008, she was raped and filmed by Mohd. Ayaz, who subsequently extorted and repeatedly raped her under threat.

Specifically against the petitioner, it was alleged that in March–April 2021, the petitioner, along with others, wrongfully confined the prosecutrix for approximately 20 days in a flat in Jasola, New Delhi.

During this time, the prosecutrix was allegedly coerced to convert to Islam at gunpoint.

The petitioner argued for discharge based on material contradictions in the prosecutrix's prior complaints, an inquiry report by ASI Layak Ali suggesting no such incident occurred in May 2021, and statements from a property dealer and doctor that did not support the allegations.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in framing charges under Sections 344/506 IPC against the petitioner despite alleged contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statements and lack of independent corroboration?

2. Whether the Court, at the stage of framing charges, is required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or weigh the reliability of witnesses?

The court primarily applied the principles governing Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. regarding discharge and framing of charge, emphasizing that at this stage, only a prima facie view of the material on record is required rather than a "meticulous weigh[ing] of evidence".

Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781), which established that an accused cannot be discharged solely due to discrepancies between the FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements, as such inconsistencies are matters for trial.

Section 340 (Wrongful Confinement), Section 344 (Confinement for ten or more days), and Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

The High Court observed that the prosecutrix made specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner in both her written complaint and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the inquiry report of ASI Layak Ali, noting that the report focused on May 2021, whereas the FIR allegations pertained to March–April 2021.

Regarding the contradictory statements of third-party witnesses (the property dealer and doctor), the Court reasoned that their truthfulness and evidentiary value could not be determined at the stage of charge and must be tested through cross-examination during trial.

The Court found that the specific role attributed to the petitioner—assisting in the 20-day confinement and pressuring the prosecutrix to convert—sufficiently established a prima facie case.

The High Court dismissed the revision petition and the pending application, clarifying that the observations made were limited to the stage of charge and would not influence the final trial where the petitioner maintains the right to cross-examine witnesses.