Allahabad High Court
Tej Pratap Singh & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 29
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1602 of 2021
Applicant :- Tej Pratap Singh & Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gopesh Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the judgment and order dated 31.01.2020 whereby the discharge application of the petitioners has been rejected as well as to quash the proceedings of criminal case No.9830/2014 titled as Tej Pratap Singh and others vs. State of U.P. arising out of case crime No.1387C of 2013 under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 379 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Raibareli.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after lodging of the first information report by the opposite party No.2 against the petitioners, the investigation of the case was not performed by the Investigating Officer in right perspective and after cursory investigation, the chargesheet was submitted and the trial court has mechanically taken the cognizance of the offence and had issued the process which was challenged by the petitioners by filing 482 No.5426 of 2015 and vide order dated 11.12.2019 while disposing of the petition of the petitioners finally, it was directed that the petitioners may approach the trial court by filing a discharge application, the same shall be decided by the trial court expeditiously.
It is further submitted that in compliance of order of this Court, an application for discharge was moved before the trial court, however the trial court without going into the depth of the matter has rejected the discharge application moved on behalf of the petitioners vide order dated 31.01.2020 and now the case is fixed for the appearance of the petitioners and the trial court has also issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners and 09.04.2021 has been fixed as the next date for appearance.
Learned AGA for the State however controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that there is no illegality in the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the trial court as at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case is to be seen and the evidence required at that stage should not be as strong or conclusive as is required for the conviction and, therefore, there is no illegality so far as the order dated 31.01.2020 of the trial court is concerned.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State and considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed the issuance of notice to opposite party No.2 is hereby dispensed with.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State and have perused the record including the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the court below. There cannot not be any doubt in the proposition that at the stage of framing of charge only a prima facie case is to be seen and at this stage, the court is not expected to go deep in to the matter and analyze or appreciate the evidence as is required during trial. The only consideration of the trial court at the time of framing of charge should be to visualize the material/evidence in support of the allegations and if there is sufficient evidence in support of the allegation then the law leans in favour of trial and the charge should be framed.
In view of above, having gone through the order of trial court dated 31.01.2020, I do not find any illegality or to say any irregularity therein and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners pertaining to the quashing of the order dated 31.01.2020 is hereby refused.
So far as the second leg of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to fact that they are ready to participate in trial and, therefore, an opportunity be provided to them to appear before the trial court for the purpose of obtaining bail and participating in the trial is concerned, it is needless to say that even the rejection of the application of the petitioners with regard to their discharge could not preclude them from participating in the trial.
Having regard to facts and circumstances mentioned above, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of with a direction that the petitioners may appear before the trial court on or before 09.04.2021 (the date already fixed before the trial court) and may move an application for bail. The trial court having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 as well as this Court in seven Judges' Bench in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 shall be under an obligation to dispose of the bail application so moved by the petitioners expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Till 09.04.2021, the petitioners shall not be arrested in pursuance of non-bailable warrants issued by the trial court. However, if the petitioners fail to appear before the trial court on or before 09.04.2021, they shall not be entitled for any benefit of this order.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021
cks/-
