KAILASH SHANKAR ALIAS RAHUL vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: December 9, 2025 + CRL.REV.P. 518/2025, CRL.M.A. 36709/2025 & CRL.M.A. 36710/2025 KAILASH SHANKAR ALIAS RAHUL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yugansh Mittal, DHCLSC, Mr. Keshav Poonia & Mr. G. B. Singh, Advs. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State. SI Mahavir, PS DBG Road, WSI Deepali. Main IO. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.07.2025 (‘the impugned order’), passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 328/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). 2. The learned Trial Court noting that there is no legal requirement for the Trial Court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges, passed the impugned order noting that the parties have been heard and after going through the case Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.REV.P. 518/2025 Page 1 of 5 KAUR Signing Date:11.12.2025 16:36:43 file, there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 328/376 of the IPC. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has assailed the impugned order by which charges have been framed for the offences punishable under Sections 328/376 of the IPC, it will be apposite to succinctly discuss the statutory law with respect to framing of charge and discharge as provided under Section 227 and 228 of the CrPC. The same is set out below: “227. Discharge If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge consi