Prima Facie Case Exists, Trial Must Proceed — (2026) INSC 468
At the stage of framing of charges, the court is only required to see if there is prima facie material.
Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) — (2026) INSC 468Core Argument
At the stage of framing of charges, the court is only required to see if there is prima facie material. The High Court correctly held that the allegations in the FIR, corroborated by witness statements, disclose the ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act and criminal intimidation. The matter must go to trial.
Key Precedents
- State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 — Held that at the stage of framing of charges, the court must consider broad probabilities and total effect of evidence; if there is prima facie material, charge must be framed.
- Swaran Singh v. State (2008) 8 SCC 435 — Held that a place can be a private place yet be within public view if it is accessible to public gaze. The balcony and ground floor of a house on a street are accessible to public gaze.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — Held that quashing of FIR is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly, only when the FIR does not disclose any offence on its face.
Premium Argument
Subscribe to access the full argument framework with precedent mapping and submission structure.
Subscribe to AccessAlready a subscriber? Sign inBENCH QUESTION
What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?
OPPOSITION COUNTER
The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...
Unlock the Argument Simulator
4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.
Available on Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans only.
Upgrade to Annual PlanDisclaimer: This argument framework is published by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Adapt all submissions to the specific facts of your matter. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in