JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent of the learned advocates for the parties. 3. In this application, made under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenge is to the order dated 22.12.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara below Exhibit-30 in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2017, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the application (Exh.30) made by applicant/accused no.1 for discharge. 4. The facts, leading to this application, are as follows : The applicant is accused no.1 in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2017, pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara. Non-applicant no.2 is the informant. On the basis of the report dated 27.07.2016, crime bearing No. 189/2016 has been registered against accused nos.1 and 2 with Police Station, Bhandara for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 323, 504, 506, 341 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 5. Accused no.1 and the informant are the residents of Nagpur. It is the case of the prosecution that accused no.1 and the informant got acquainted with each other. Their acquaintance developed into friendship between them and their families. Accused no.1 and the husband of the informant are friends. In the year 2011, accused no.1, the informant and one Sanjay Dhabekar formed a partnership in the name of “Rajaram Builders and Developers”. On account of their business, accused no.1 and the informant came into contact with each other. The informant was treating accused no.1 like a brother of his husband. 6. It is stated that in the course of time, accused no.1 started taking undue advantage of the nature of the informant. Accused no.1 suggested the informant to give ‘Talaq’ to her husband and marry with him. Due to this, the informant was shocked. The informant apprised her husband and father-in-law about the conduct of accused no.1. It is stated that accused no.1 sent number of messages to her on her phone. Accused no.1, as per the informant, was after her. Accused no.1 is the Ex-MLA from Chimur constituency. The informant refused to submit to the wish and desire of accused no.1. Therefore, accused no.1 started pressurizing the informant to satisfy his sexual lust. 7. It is stated that on 08.11.2015, the informant was alone at her house. Accused no.1, as per the informant, was after her. Accused no.1 is the Ex-MLA from Chimur constituency. The informant refused to submit to the wish and desire of accused no.1. Therefore, accused no.1 started pressurizing the informant to satisfy his sexual lust. 7. It is stated that on 08.11.2015, the informant was alone at her house. Accused no.1 made a phone call to her and informed that he is coming to her house and the informant should satisfy his demand. The informant got frightened. Since, her husband was out of town, she contacted their business acquaintance one Kailash Golechha and informed him about this. She requested him to help her. She went to meet Mr. Golechha. At that time, Mr. Golechha was leaving for Rajnandgaon on account of his business commitment. The informant, to save herself from accused no.1, left Nagpur with Mr. Golechha in her car for going to Rajnandgaon. When they reached near Bhandara, the informant was not feeling well. Therefore, they stayed in Hotel Ashoka at Bhandara. It is stated that on 09.11.2015, in the morning, she switched on her phone. After some time of switching her phone, accused no.1 made a phone call to the informant and informed that he is coming to the hotel. Accused no.1 with his driver, who is accused no.2, came to Hotel Ashoka. He pressurized the informant to satisfy his demand. Mr. Golechha called the Manager of the hotel. Accused no.1 told the Manager that he is Ex-MLA and the informant is his wife and therefore, they shall not interfere in their personal matter. Accused no.1 drove these persons out of the room. His driver brought the pistol. It is stated that at gunpoint accused no.1 made the informant to remove her clothes. He molested her modesty and committed rape on her. He extended threat of dire consequences, if the informant discontinued relationship with him. It is stated that from the said hotel, at gunpoint, accused no.1 carried the informant to a resort at Sillari. At the said resort, accused no.1 committed rape on the informant without her consent. Accused no.1, according to the informant, threatened her not to disclose this to anybody, otherwise he would kill her son and family. 8. It is stated that the informant was under the spell of threat from accused no.1. At the said resort, accused no.1 committed rape on the informant without her consent. Accused no.1, according to the informant, threatened her not to disclose this to anybody, otherwise he would kill her son and family. 8. It is stated that the informant was under the spell of threat from accused no.1. Considering the safety of her son and husband, she did not lodge report of these incidents immediately because she was threatened with dire consequences. It is stated that accused no.1, even after these incidents, continued to pressurize and threaten the informant to keep relations with him. The informant got fade up with all this and therefore, she lodged report against accused nos.1 and 2. The crime as above came to be registered against accused nos.1 and 2. The charge-sheet came to be filed after completion of the investigation. 8. Accused no.1 made application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Exh.30) for his discharge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 22.12.2021, rejected the said application. Against this order, accused no.1 is before this Court. 9. I have heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for accused no.1, Mrs. Mayuri H. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. J. M. Gandhi, learned advocate for the informant. Perused the record and proceeding. 10. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for accused no.1 took me through the relevant record compiled in the charge-sheet and submitted that the record, prima facie, indicates that the case filed against accused no.1 is false and frivolous. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the main witness from Hotel Ashoka has not supported the incident as narrated by the informant. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that as per the statements of the witnesses from the hotel, accused no.1 and the informant were in the hotel room hardly for 15 minutes, after arrival of accused no.1 there. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submitted that interested version of the informant and Mr. Golechha does not find support from the independent source. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the room in Hotel Ashoka was booked by Mr. Golechha and he checked out from the hotel at 10.30 a.m. on 09.11.2015. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submitted that the incident of rape, as stated by the informant, is not made out from the material on record. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the room in Hotel Ashoka was booked by Mr. Golechha and he checked out from the hotel at 10.30 a.m. on 09.11.2015. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submitted that the incident of rape, as stated by the informant, is not made out from the material on record. It is further submitted that the prosecution on that count is totally unbelievable. 11. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the second alleged incident of rape on the informant in a resort at Sillari has also not been supported by the material witnesses. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, accused no.1 took the informant to a resort at Sillari and there he committed rape on her. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that as far as this incident is concerned, except interested version of the informant, there is no other evidence. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the incharge and the staff of the said resort have categorically stated during the course of investigation that accused no.1 and the informant had not come to their resort and stayed there even for a minute. Learned Senior Advocate, by drawing my attention to the Call Details Record (CDR) of mobile phone numbers of the informant and accused no.1, submitted that their location in CDR does not support the version of the informant. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the CDR further shows that even after the alleged incident at Sillari, the informant was in constant contact on phone with accused no.1. Learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of the WhatsApp chats between accused no.1 and the informant placed on record by accused no.1, submitted that accused no.1 and the informant were in intimate relationship. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the material compiled in the charge-sheet clearly indicates that accused no.1 and the informant together went to Kodaikanal to visit the son of the informant and stayed there together. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submitted that false report was lodged after eight months. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that there is no material in the charge-sheet to presume that accused no.1 has committed the offences as alleged by the informant. 12. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submitted that false report was lodged after eight months. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that there is no material in the charge-sheet to presume that accused no.1 has committed the offences as alleged by the informant. 12. Learned Senior Advocate, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prashant Bharti .vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported at (2013) 9 SCC 293 , submitted that scientific evidence in the form of CDR itself is sufficient to doubt the story of the informant and as such for the purpose of granting benefit to accused no.1, at this stage. 13. Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the material on record is sufficient to frame Charge against the accused persons. Learned APP submitted that there is hardly any dispute about the presence of accused no.1 at Hotel Ashoka on the given date and at given time. Learned APP submitted that as far as alleged incident of rape is concerned, the version of the informant cannot be discarded at this stage. Learned APP submitted that the statement of Mr. Golechha supports the statement of the informant on all material points. Learned APP submitted that evidence in the form of CDR clearly supports the case of the prosecution that from Hotel Ashoka at Bhandara, the informant and accused no.1 travelled towards Pench-Sillari. Learned APP, on the basis of CDR, pointed out that on the given date and at the relevant time, their location was near Sillari resort. Learned APP, therefore submitted that even on the alleged incident of rape at Sillari, the statement of the informant cannot be discarded at this stage. Learned APP submitted that there is ample material on record to prima facie show the basic ingredients of the offences for which accused nos.1 and 2 are proposed to be charged. Learned APP submitted that at this stage, the exercise of appreciation of evidence and testing the evidence on merits, is not permissible. Learned APP submitted that at this stage, the Court has to see whether the material on record is sufficient to presume and not to prima facie establish that accused no.1 has committed the offence. Learned APP submitted that the material on record, compiled in the charge-sheet, satisfy the basic requirement of law to frame Charge against the accused. 14. Mr. Learned APP submitted that at this stage, the Court has to see whether the material on record is sufficient to presume and not to prima facie establish that accused no.1 has committed the offence. Learned APP submitted that the material on record, compiled in the charge-sheet, satisfy the basic requirement of law to frame Charge against the accused. 14. Mr. J.M.Gandhi, learned advocate for the informant submitted that delay in lodging the first information report has been explained. Learned advocate submitted that on the ground of delay, the accused cannot be discharged because the issue of delay has to be considered on appreciation of the evidence. Learned advocate submitted that accused no.1 is Ex-MLA from Chimur Constituency. Learned Advocate submitted that during the course of investigation, the witnesses were threatened. Learned advocate pointed out that the investigation conducted by the first Investigating Officer was not fair and therefore, a superior officer was appointed to conduct the investigation. Learned advocate, apart from adopting above submissions advanced by the learned APP, submitted that at this stage the evidence cannot be appreciated and on undertaking the said exercise, the material on record cannot be branded as unworthy of credence and clean chit cannot be granted to accused no.1. Learned advocate submitted that all the submissions advanced on behalf of accused no.1 are not within the parameters of law to be applied for deciding the discharge application. Learned advocate, in support of his submissions, placed heavy reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asim Shariff .vs. National Investigation Agency, reported at AIR 2019 SC 3083 . 15. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, I have minutely perused the record and proceedings. It is undisputed that before the alleged incidents, accused no.1 and the informant were acquainted with each other. Rather it can be said that they were having close family relations. They were doing business together. They were travelling together. Not only accused no.1 and the informant, but their families also travelled together on number of occasions. It is seen on a perusal of the record that there is no dispute about presence of accused no.1 at Hotel Ashoka, Bhandara on the given date and at given time. They were doing business together. They were travelling together. Not only accused no.1 and the informant, but their families also travelled together on number of occasions. It is seen on a perusal of the record that there is no dispute about presence of accused no.1 at Hotel Ashoka, Bhandara on the given date and at given time. It is the case of the prosecution that accused no.1 with his driver followed the informant and by using force, at gunpoint, accused no.1 committed rape on her in the room of Hotel Ashoka. It is the case of the prosecution that accused no.1 was after the informant and pressurizing her to satisfy his sexual lust. Accused no.1, as per the case of the prosecution, followed the informant to Bhandara, when she left Nagpur to go to Rajnandgaon with her family friend Mr. Golechha to save herself from accused no.1 on account of his threat to come to her house taking advantage of absence of her husband. 16. With the assistance of the learned Advocates, I have gone through the CDR of the phone numbers of the informant as well as accused no.1. The CDRs indicate that on the given date and time, their location was at Bhandara and from Bhandara they travelled in the direction of Sillari. Rather it can be said on perusal of the CDRs that their location was around the resort at Sillari, where according to the informant, the second incident of rape took place. It is true that the report of the incident was lodged after eight months. Learned Senior Advocate, in all fairness, submitted that on the sole ground of delay in lodging FIR, the accused cannot claim discharge. It is to be noted that the delay in lodging the report cannot be always fatal to the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has to explain the delay. Whether the delay is properly explained or not explained is a question of fact and therefore, the same has to be considered and appreciated on the basis of evidence. 17. It is true that the witnesses from the resort at Sillari have not at all supported the case of the prosecution. They stated that they have not seen accused no.1 and the informant in their resort on the given date and time. As far as presence of accused no.1, the informant and Mr. 17. It is true that the witnesses from the resort at Sillari have not at all supported the case of the prosecution. They stated that they have not seen accused no.1 and the informant in their resort on the given date and time. As far as presence of accused no.1, the informant and Mr. Golechha at Hotel Ashoka at Bhandara is concerned, the same is undisputed. The only disputed question is with regard to the alleged acts committed by accused no.1 and his driver of threatening and pressurizing the informant and others at gunpoint and committing rape rape on the informant at gunpoint in the hotel room. It is true that as far as this incident of rape is concerned, the Manager and other staff from Hotel Ashoka have not directly stated about it. However, they have stated that there was quarrel between them. They have also stated that when they questioned accused no.1, he told them that he is Ex-MLA and the informant is his wife and therefore, they should not intervene and poke the nose in their personal affairs. All these witnesses have stated that after this, they went away and accused no.1 and the informant thereafter were in the room for 15 minutes. It is to be noted that on the basis of their statements, the part of the incident has been supported. 18. The question is whether the version of the informant on the alleged incident of rape at hotel room and the corroborative statement of Mr. Golechha on part of the incident, can be discarded and disbelieved by branding it unworthy of credence at this stage. It is not the case of the informant that accused no.1 committed rape on her at gunpoint in the presence of Mr. Golechha. She has stated that accused no.1 drove away the hotel employees and Mr. Golechha from the room by pointing gun at them and then accused no.1 committed rape on her. The question is whether this statement of the informant can be branded as patent lie. In my view, unless and until there is material to brand her statement as patent lie, the same cannot be thrown to the wind at this stage, as stated by accused no.1. 19. It is the defence of accused no.1 that he and the informant were in intimate relationship. In my view, unless and until there is material to brand her statement as patent lie, the same cannot be thrown to the wind at this stage, as stated by accused no.1. 19. It is the defence of accused no.1 that he and the informant were in intimate relationship. It is further his case that the incidents as alleged did not occur. It is further his case that even after these alleged incidents, the informant was in constant contact with him on phone. On the basis of this, it is submitted that the case of the informant that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, is totally unbelievable and as such cannot be accepted. 20. In my view, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to take into consideration the material compiled in the charge-sheet. The hearing contemplated under Sections 226 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is on the basis of the material compiled in the charge-sheet. As per Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the Court after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution and after considering the material on record placed by the prosecution, has to form an opinion as to whether the said material is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. In this case, the informant has narrated the incident of rape at Hotel Ashoka in great detail. Similarly, she has narrated the incident of rape in the resort at Sillari. The statement of Mr. Golechha on material point supports the incident. Mr. Golechha, in his statement, with vivid details has narrated the incident. The question is whether their statements at this stage can be discarded and disbelieved. It is also necessary to see whether the facts stated by the informant in her report and by Mr. Golechha in his statement, are sufficient to presume that accused no.1 has committed the alleged offences or not. It is to be noted that learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of CDR of the phone numbers of the informant and accused no.1, tried to convince the Court that the same does not support the version of the informant about occurrence of the incidents of rape as alleged by her. Learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of scientific evidence of CDR, tried to make good his submission by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Prashant Bharti (supra). Learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of scientific evidence of CDR, tried to make good his submission by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Prashant Bharti (supra). 21. Learned advocate for the informant submitted that the facts in Prashant Bharti’s case (supra) and the facts in the case on hand are different. Learned advocate for the informant pointed out that in Prashant Bharti’s Case (supra), on the basis of CDR record of phone numbers of the victim and the accused, their presence on the spot was not at all established. As far as the CDRs in this case are concerned, it mentions the location of the phone numbers of the informant and accused no.1. Their location on the given date and time at Hotel Ashoka is fully established. It is further seen from the CDR that from Hotel Ashoka, the holders of the mobile phones had travelled towards Sillari. It is, therefore, seen that the statement of the informant that accused no.1 carried her by applying force at gunpoint towards Sillari and in the resort at Sillari he committed rape on her, needs consideration. In my view, therefore, the law laid down in the case of Prashant Bharti (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand, at this stage. 22. It is to be noted that the evidence compiled in the chargesheet needs to be sifted for a limited point. The contours of law while deciding the discharge application have been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in number of decisions. In this context, the settled legal position having bearing with the issue may be considered. I may usefully refer the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Tarun Jit Tejpal .vs. State of Goa and another, reported at (2020) 17 SCC 556 ; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate .vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and others, reported at (1990) 4 SCC 76 ; and Sajjan Kumar .vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported at (2010) 9 SCC 368 , wherein it has been held that appreciation of evidence at the time of framing of the charge or while considering discharge application, is not permissible. The Court is not permitted to analyse all the material touching the pros and cons, reliability and acceptability of the evidence. The Court is not permitted to analyse all the material touching the pros and cons, reliability and acceptability of the evidence. In Tarun Jit Tejpal’s case (supra), it is held that at the time of consideration of the application for discharge, the Court cannot act as a mouth piece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is held that at the stage of consideration of application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences. At this stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that materials would not warrant a conviction. It is held that what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting accused has been made out. It is further held that the law does not permit a mini trial at the stage of deciding the discharge application or at the time of framing of charge. 23. On going through the record and proceeding and particularly keeping in mind the settled legal position as above, I am satisfied that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not at all in error in rejecting the application of accused no.1 for discharge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, by applying the settled legal position and the parameters provided under the law, found that the evidence on record was such to reject the application. It needs to be stated that in this case there is a statement of the informant. She has narrated the reasons for lodging the report belatedly. There is statement of Mr. Golechha as well as the statements of other witnesses. The only question that needs to be addressed is whether the said evidence is sufficient to prove the incident of rape or not. In my view, for the purpose of addressing this issue, appreciation of evidence has to be done. There is statement of Mr. Golechha as well as the statements of other witnesses. The only question that needs to be addressed is whether the said evidence is sufficient to prove the incident of rape or not. In my view, for the purpose of addressing this issue, appreciation of evidence has to be done. The material on record is sufficient to presume that accused no.1 has committed the alleged offence. It is submitted on behalf of accused no.1 that the statements of the informant and Mr. Golechha, in the absence of supporting evidence, cannot be taken into consideration to frame the Charge against the accused. I am afraid to accept this submission at this stage of the matter and that too, in the teeth of the case of the prosecution and the material compiled in the charge-sheet against the accused persons. It is to be noted that the Court has to see the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence. It is a settled legal position that the conviction can be based on the evidence of sole witness, if the evidence of said witness is found to be of sterling quality. In my view, for the purpose of recording a finding as to the quality and credibility of the evidence, the evidence must be adduced before the Court and the same must be subjected to the test of cross-examination. In my view, if such an exercise is undertaken at the stage of considering the discharge application, then it would be nothing short of holding a mini trial. The law does not permit such mini trial at the stage of considering discharge application or framing of charge. 24. In view of the above, I conclude that there is no substance in the application. The impugned order dated 22.12.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara is within the bounds of settled legal position and parameters of law. The application being devoid of substance, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.