Prima facie case and grave suspicion require trial, while charge-framing courts cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess defences.

At the discharge and charge-framing stage under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court assesses prosecution material only for a prima facie case or grave suspicion. It may sift the record for that limited purpose but cannot undertake a mini-trial, assess likely defences, or evaluate the prosecutrix's conduct; where sufficient material exists, charges proceed to trial. The article also notes that the rule against investigation by the complainant applies prospectively and that an informant acting as Investigating Officer does not, by itself, vitiate the trial or justify discharge at the charge-framing stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused was entitled to discharge because the informant and Investigating Officer were the same person; (ii) Whether the charge should be quashed or the accused discharged at the stage governed by Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the accused was entitled to discharge because the informant and Investigating Officer were the same person.

Analysis: The rule in Mohan Lal concerning investigation by the complainant was held to operate prospectively under the binding three-Judge decision in Varinder Kumar. Since the prosecution commenced before Mohan Lal, that rule did not apply. The circumstance that the informant conducted the investigation may be relevant while assessing evidence after trial, but does not by itself vitiate the trial or require discharge at the charge-framing stage.

Conclusion: The accused was not entitled to discharge on the ground that the informant and Investigating Officer were the same person.

Issue (ii): Whether the charge should be quashed or the accused discharged at the stage governed by Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: At the discharge and charge-framing stage, the material is assessed only to determine whether it discloses a prima facie case or grave suspicion. The court may sift the material for that limited purpose, but cannot conduct a roving inquiry, assess probable defences, evaluate the prosecutrix's conduct, or undertake a mini-trial. The record disclosed more than a prima facie case and ample material requiring trial.

Conclusion: The charges were rightly framed and there was no ground to discharge the accused.

Final Conclusion: The criminal prosecution proceeds to trial, which is directed to be concluded expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, charges must be framed where the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case or grave suspicion; merits and defences cannot be determined through a mini-trial.

---