Vishal Mishra, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 10.09.2022 and 29.11.2022 passed by the Special Judge (under the POCSO Act), Rewa in Special Case No. 40 of 2022.

2. Vide order dated 10.09.2022, an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 227 of CrPC for discharge has been rejected by the trial Court. Whereas, by order dated 29.11.2022, charges under Sections 376D read with 120B, 176, 202, 212 of the IPC and Section 5/6 read with 17 of the POCSO Act have been framed against the petitioner.

3. As per the prosecution case, the co-accused sexually abused the victim girl and the petitioner facilitated commission of the crime.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the role of the petitioner in the present case is that he has only given shelter to the co-accused at his Farmhouse. Even the vehicle in which the petitioner drove the principal accused does not belong to him. There are no allegation of commission of rape against him. It is argued that his presence at the place of commission of the offence itself is not reflected from the prosecution story. His presence at the place of incident is after the offence has been committed. Therefore, no offence under Section 376D of the IPC as well as Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act is made out against him. To buttress his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 16 SCC 547, [LQ/SC/2019/759] Sr. Tessy Jose vs State of Kerala (2018) 18 SCC 292, [LQ/SC/2018/934] Sukhram vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 7 SCC 502, [LQ/SC/2007/1012] V.L. Tresa vs State of Kerala reported in (2001) 3 SCC 549 [LQ/SC/2001/386] and Asar Mohammad vs State of U.P. reported in (2019) 12 SCC 253 [LQ/SC/2018/1361] . Hence, he prays for quashment of the charges in question.

5 . Per contra, State counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order framing charges. It is submitted that involvement of the petitioner is clearly reflected from the statements of the witnesses. There was a conspiracy being hatched by the petitioner for commission of the offence. He is the person who took the principal accused in a Fortuner vehicle and granted them shelter at his Farmhouse. Merely the fact that he has not committed sexual intercourse cannot be a ground for quashment of the charges. The victim was admittedly minor and was subjected to rape by the other co-accused. The petitioner facilitated the crime by hatching a criminal conspiracy. The argument that his presence is shown by the prosecution after the offence took place is of no help to the petitioner. It can only be raised by way of defence which requires evidence to be recorded before the trial Court. Hence, no interference is required with the impugned orders.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents filed along with this revision.

7. The prosecution story shows the allegations against the petitioner that he had facilitated the commission of rape with the victim. He has taken away the principal accused in a Fortuner vehicle. He himself was driving the vehicle and gave shelter to the co-accused in his Farmhouse. This is a case of gang rape being committed with the minor girl in a preplanned manner. Whether the petitioner was a part of the conspiracy or not is a matter of evidence.

8. Further, it is well settled that while considering the question of charge, the trial Judge is not required to make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. Nor is it necessary to delve deeply into various aspects. All that the Court is required to consider is whether the material available on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. Even a strong suspicion leading to presumption as to possibility as against certainty makes out a case for framing of charge. It is only the prima facie case which is required to be seen. The prosecution story clearly shows that the petitioner hatched a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused and in the course of which the co-accused committed rape with the victim at the Farmhouse which belongs to the petitioner. Very serious and direct allegations are assigned that the petitioner has arranged accommodation for the main accused and facilitated rape of the victim by the co-accused.

9. The law relating to framing of charges and their quashment is also settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel (supra), Asim Shariff vs National Investigation Agency reported in (2019) 7 SCC 148 [LQ/SC/2019/938] and in the case of Sajjan Kumar vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 [LQ/SC/2010/998] .

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel (supra) in para 23 has observed as under:-

"23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the Court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The Court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the Court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the Court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence."

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar (supra) has held as under :-

"At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible."

12. Thus, only a prima facie case is required to be seen by the learned trial Court while framing charges. In the present case, there existed a prima facie case that the petitioner had facilitated commission of the crime by the co-accused. The defence of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. Therefore, the charges which have been framed do not call for any interference. These are the matter of trial to be considered by leading appropriate evidence before the trial Court. Under these circumstances, no interference is warranted with the impugned orders.

13. The revision is accordingly dismissed.