Uttarakhand High Court
Yogesh Chabbra vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.378 of 2025
Yogesh Chabbra .........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .........Respondent
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, AGA for the State.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This revision preferred under Sections 438 and
442 of the BNSS, 2023 is directed against the order dated
16.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge/FTSC, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in
Sessions Trial No.68 of 2024 (FIR No.07 of 2024), State vs.
Yogesh Chhabra, whereby the application under Section 227
Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist for his discharge has been
rejected.
2. The facts in nutshell are that an application was
moved on behalf of the accused/revisionist seeking
discharge. In the application moved under Section 227
Cr.P.C., it was stated that the revisionist has been implicated
in order to exert undue pressure upon him; although, no such
offence was committed; according to the prosecution, the age
of the prosecutrix was of 23 years and she became friend
with the revisionist in the year 2021 and since the year 2022,
they were in contact through phone numbers and the
revisionist used to visit the prosecutrix at her house.
However, no objection was raised to that intimacy.
3. A proposal for marriage was made by the
revisionist which was accepted by the parents of victim and
the date of marriage was fixed for 13.02.2023 and not
14.02.2023. He took the victim out for the purpose of
celebrating valentine day, prior consent whereof was given
by the prosecutrix. On 14.02.2023, the physical relations
were established between the parties.
4. It is the case of the victim that the revisionist
established the physical relations on 14.02.2023. However,
no complaint to that effect was given to the police till
22.11.2023. It makes it clear that the complaint made by the
victim was a fabricated one. As per the FIR, the place of
incident stated to be the collectorate campus Udham Singh
Nagar, where there is heavy influx of people.
5. The Investigating Officer also recorded the
statements of some witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who
have deposed about some transactions and returned of some
articles. However, no allegations of physical relations have
been made.
6. On the basis of all these grounds, the prayer for
discharge of revisionist was made. The trial court by the
impugned judgment and order dated 16.04.2025 has rejected
the said application. Hence, this revision.
7. According to the prosecution story, on
14.02.2023, when the revisionist had taken the victim for
outing at Kathgodam then while returning at about 7:00 to
7:30 PM, he parked his car at a lonely place and even on the
resistance of the victim, he established physical relations with
her. Thereafter, on 19.11.2023 at about 4:00 PM, the victim
telephoned the accused, but he threatened her to malign her
image and to kill her.
8. In this matter, the charge-sheet was submitted
against the accused under Section 376, 504 and 506 of IPC.
9. So far as the question of framing of charge is
concerned in this regard Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI, 2010 (3) UC 1719, has propounded
that the Court only has to see as to whether a prima facie case
against the accused is made out or not? The trial court after
hearing the parties and perusal of the entire evidence
available on record as well as other documentary evidence
reached to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out
against the revisionist. Thus the application moved by the
revisionist is baseless. The trial court is only bound to reach
to a conclusion from examining the record as to whether a
prima facie case is made out against the accused or not? It
reached to the conclusion that this much of evidence is
available on record to proceed ahead with the trial against the
accused and he cannot be discharged. Accordingly,
application moved by the revisionist under Section 227
Cr.P.C. for his discharge was rejected.
10. I am in full agreement with the finding recorded
by the trial court while rejecting the application moved by the
revisionist seeking discharge. The revisionist is well within
its right to lead its defence in order to proof his innocence.
11. No perversity or illegality could be pointed out by
the learned counsel for the revisionist in the impugned order.
The present criminal revision lacks merit and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
24.06.2025
Ravi
