Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrakant Purandare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25204
1 CRR-5766-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5766 of 2023
CHANDRAKANT PURANDARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brijesh Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397/401
of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by impugned order dated 21.11.2023 passed by
8th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T.No.628/2023, whereby an
application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been
dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/prosecutrix has
lodged an FIR at Police Station Madhavganj, District Gwalior by stating that
she is a widow lady and Government servant and the petitioner was also
serving in the same Department and petitioner's wife has died. Petitioner on
the pretext of marriage, took her in his flat and committed rape repeatedly
upon her. When she told him for marriage, then on 17.11.2022, petitioner
has solemnized marriage with her at Arya Samaj Mandir but it was not a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25204
2 CRR-5766-2023
valid marriage. When she told him for solemnizing valid marriage and took
her with him, then he refused. Accordingly, offence has been registered and
after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed before the Trial
Court. Before the Trial Court, petitioner has filed an application under
Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by stating that he got married with respondent No.2.
They are husband and wife, therefore, no offence is made out against the
petitioner and he deserves to be discharged from all the offences. After
hearing both the parties, learned Trial Court has dismissed the application
vide order dated 21.11.2023. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has
preferred this criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is
husband of the prosecutrix. They solemnized their marriage on 17.11.2022
in Arya Samaj Mandir and process for Saptpadi has also been done as per
Hindu Marriage Act but the trial Court has ignored all these facts and
rejected his application. Impugned order is against the law and fact, hence he
prays that the impugned order be set aside and he should be discharged from
all the offences.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the prayer
and prayed for its rejection by supporting the impugned order passed by the
Trial Court.
5. Despite service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of
respondent No.2.
6. Both the parties are heard.
7. Although it is an admitted fact that both the parties have solemnized
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25204
3 CRR-5766-2023
marriage before Arya Samaj Mandir but the question arises whether the
marriage solemnized before Arya Samaj Mandir is a valid marriage or not
has to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced during trial and the
prosecutrix's consent for marriage has been taken voluntarily or not is a
mixed question of fact and law.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a citation of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in
2025 INSC 137, in which it has been observed as under:
"15. In this regard, it has been rightly pointed out by the appellant
that as per Exception 2 under Section 375 of IPC, sexual
intercourse by a man with his own wife cannot be termed as rape
and, hence, a charge under Section 376 of IPC cannot be sustained
against the appellant. Further, the conduct of the Respondent No. 2
and 3 in failing to enter appearance despite sufficient notice is
reflective of the fact that it is a dead case where no purpose shall
be served in continuing the criminal proceedings alleging
charges of rape against the appellant."
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Piyush vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
reported in 2016(2) JLJ 185 observed as under:
"11. From the aforesaid precedents, it reveals that while the Court
has to decide whether the prosecutrix''s consent was voluntarily or
under a misconception of fact, the Court has to consider the
evidence and surrounding circumstances of that case and at the
time of framing charge the Court has power to weigh the evidence
for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima-facie
case against the accused has been made out and whether the
materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against
the accused which has not been properly explained, then the Court
will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the
trial."
10. Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of M.E. Shivalinga Murty vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768 observed as
under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25204
4 CRR-5766-2023
"ii. The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge
at the instance of the prosecution.
iii. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out
whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence
would consist of the statements recorded by the Police or the
documents produced before the Court.
iv. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to
prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is
challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence
evidence, if any, "cannot show that the accused committed
offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding
with the trial".
v. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving
rise to the grave suspicion.
vi. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total
effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the
court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This,
however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into
the pros and cons.
vii. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of
the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material
brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
viii. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong
suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and
refusing to discharge the accused.
15. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage
when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 of the
Cr.PC (See State of J & K v. Sudershan Chakkar and another).
The expression, "the record of the case", used in Section 227 of
the Cr.PC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if
any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any
right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of
framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the
submission of the accused is to be confined to the material
produced by the Police (See State of Orissa v. Debendra
Nath Padhi)."
11. In the case in hand, it is evident that FLS report and DNA report is
found positive. Named FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and the
prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also
corroborated her FIR. The genuineness of marriage of both the parties
required to be examined on the basis of evidence available on record,
therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no case is made out
against the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25204
5 CRR-5766-2023
12. On this aspect, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Orissa vs. Debendranath Padhi [2004 Law Suit (SC) 1408] is
worth to refer here as under:
"Further, at the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing
inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is
accepted, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of
charge. That would defeat the object of the Code. It is well-settled
that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused
cannot be put forth."
13. The aforesaid stand of the Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has
also been endorsed by Hon'ble Apex Court in another case rendered in VLS
Finance Limited vs. S.P. Gupta and another reported in 2016 Law suit SC
111. Further in this context, the land mark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in the case of Maharashtra State vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj &
Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2041 is propitious to reproduce here:
"The law on the subject is now well settled, as pointed out in
Niranjan Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bijjaya [(1990) 4 SCC 76 :
1991 SCC (Cri) 47 : AIR 1990 SC 1962] that at Sections 227 and
228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and
documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court
may, 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. Therefore, at the stage of framing
of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to
find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for
proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the
conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction."
14. In view of the aforesaid analysis in entirety as well as the material
available on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid cases, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25204
6 CRR-5766-2023
impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court.
Therefore, no interference is warranted.
15. Therefore, this revision petition is devoid of merit and substance
and is hereby dismissed.
16. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the
merits of the case and this order shall not come in the way of the learned trial
court while passing the final judgment.
C.C. as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
