The court dismissed the petition of the accused mother-son duo who contended that a magisterial court "erred" by framing charges on the woman's complaint against them as she made different claims in the FIR before the Crime Against Women Cell and the police.
Refusing to accept the contention, Additional Sessions Judge Rakesh Kumar-I said, "An FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the entire events and cannot contain minute details of the events."
"At this stage, the court is required to see only prima facie evidence and even the charge can be framed on the basis of grave suspicion," it said.
Holding that there was "no infirmity or illegality" in the observation of the trial court, it said the magistrate "has considered each and every aspect of the case while passing the order and has taken into account all the aspects of the case and there is no reason to interfere in findings of the same".
The woman had lodged an FIR in 2012 against her husband and mother-in-law under sections 498A(subjecting woman to cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) under IPC.
