The Allahabad High Court observed that while rejecting discharge application, the Court blindly relying upon the charge sheet. It was opined that the trial Court cannot function like a post office and accept the charge sheet without application of judicial mind.
Brief Facts:
An FIR was lodged against the Applicants under Sections 452, 386, 504, 506 & 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) . Before framing of the charges, a discharge application was filed, which was dismissed. The Court proceeded to frame charges.
Contentions of the Applicants:
It was argued that for deciding discharge application, it is required on the part of Magistrate to see FIR, Case Diary, Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Charge Sheet.
It was urged that the Inquiry Officer without properly considering the material available on record has submitted that charge sheet, which is bad and liable to be set aside.
Observations of the Court:
The primary issue was whether from perusal of FIR as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., any charge is made out under Sections 386, 389, 452, 504, 506 & 507 IPC or not.
It was noted that delivery is a must for extortion cases. However, in the present case there was no such allegation in either FIR or statement under Section 161.
The Bench noted that therefore, no delivery has ever taken place under fear or threat, which is necessary requirement for Section 383 read with Section 386 IPC
The High Court observed that while rejecting discharge application, Court blindly relying upon the charge sheet. It was opined that the trial Court cannot function like a post office and accept the charge sheet without application of judicial mind.
The decision of the Court:
In view of the above, the application was partly allowed. The Rejection of discharge application for Section 386 & 389 IPC as well as framing charges under Section 386 & 389 IPC were quashed.
Case Title: Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu And Another v. State Of U.P. And Another
Case No.: 42148 of 2022
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Neeraj Tiwari
Advocate for Applicant: Adv. Shreya Gupta
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Saurabh Agarwal
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
